Appendix B: Wind Farm Access Point, Over-dimension and Over-weight

Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Effects Assessment Report

Transportation Effects Assessment.docx

Appendix B: Wind Farm Access Point, Over-dimension and Over-weight Transportation Route Summary



1. Wind Farm Access Points, Over-dimension and Over-weight Transportation Route Summary

A route assessment has been undertaken for the Site access route from the Port of Napier to Pahiatua on SH2 and then along local public roads through to the Wind Farm Access Points.

1.1 Route Assessment Parameters

The parameters that have been adopted as a basis for governing the route assessment are as follows:

� Pavement design;

� Bridge design;

� Bridge dimension;

� Road geometry;

� Road gradient;

� Current condition;

� Serviceability; and

� Property boundaries.

The strength of route components is assessed through pavement design, bridge design, current condition and serviceability. These parameters have influenced the ability to transport heavy loads, such as, the turbine nacelle and tower sections as well as the CHWF transformers. The New Zealand Transport Agency and District Councils concerned have identified structures on the proposed route. Where the parameters have indicated issues additional strengthening may be required and possible solutions have been developed.

Dimensional constraints of the proposed route have been assessed by considering bridge dimension, road gradient, road geometry, current condition and property boundaries. Transportation of long Over-dimension loads, such as the turbine blades and tower sections, has required considerable space on route to allow passage. Tight bends, steep gradients, crests, underpasses, and constricting road widths may prevent passage of long and wide loads, such as those needed for the CHWF components, and road reconfiguration work may be required to remedy.

Dimensions of bridges and culverts on proposed routes within the Tararua and Masterton District are outlined in Appendix H. The scope of potential work required on the Local Road bridge structures is summarised on Figure 28 (Appendix A).

1.2 Assessment Methodology Assessment of the proposed route from the Port of Napier to the CHWF has been a complex process. Understanding the loads being carried was the first consideration. Followed by considering what sort of transportation was needed and how manoeuvrable it was. A selected route was then driven from the Port of Napier to Castle Hill to assess a first-hand perspective of possible routes to Site. The preferred Over-dimension route from the Port of Napier to CHWF is from Napier to Hamua along SH2. Then from Hamua to Alfredton via Rongomai and along



Mangaone Valley Road. From Alfredton, Over-dimension transport is proposed to take the desired route to Site along Route 52, Castle Hill Road and/or Daggs Road.

The preferred route was chosen by selecting the most direct route from Napier to CHWF that utilised main roads through townships and state highways that appeared to have to the least geometric constraints. A more detailed analysis of the proposed route has been done by consulting the District Councils of Tararua and Masterton and local branches of NZTA. Outcomes of this consultation yielded strength and dimensional parameters of concern and indicated where the route had to be refined. For example, just north of Eketahuna there is a rail over bridge crossing SH2. The CHWF Over-dimension loads could not pass underneath due to a height restriction of 4.39m beneath this over bridge. A rail over-pass is available at this location. This has however been assessed as inappropriate due to the nature of the approach grades. The route has been refined so that turbine component transport turns off SH2 at Hamua instead of travelling down to Eketahuna. The Councils have provided information on existing structures along the route. Structures of concern have been identified and solutions to remedy issues, such as strength and dimensions constraints, have been compiled.

The Local Road options for the approach of Over-weight and Over-dimension transport from SH2 to the CHWF Site have been concluded as:

� Pahiatua to Rongomai;

� Hamua to Rongomai; and

� Rongomai to Alfredton via Mangaone Valley Road.

From Alfredton there are three routes to the Site:

� Route 52 onto Waitawhiti Road, Waihoki Valley Road and Rimu Road;

� Castle Hill Road; and

� Daggs Road onto Maringi Road.

Other haulage, such as aggregate transport, can also approach from Eketahuna to Alfredton. When approaching from the south, Masterton for example, other haulage can go onto Daggs Road along Whangaehu Valley Road and onto Maringi Road along Manawa Road.

In general, the route between the Port of Napier and Alfredton requires minimal earthworks. Between Alfredton and the Site, the narrow and winding sections of the road are expected to require varying degrees of enhancement. In steep and winding terrain narrower sections of the road are expected to require some significant earthworks and construction. The principal route on the state highway sections of the road follow the defined NZTA Over-dimension vehicle routes, including local bypasses. A separate and detailed Over-dimension vehicle route application will be made as part of the building consent process.

Suitability of bends and intersections are broadly based on the parameters supplied by Siemens for their 2.3MW VS turbines. Overviews and impressions formed On-Site and from the desktop investigations have been used as part of the determination of preferred routes. Detailed analyses and design of necessary improvements for particular intersections or alignments are proposed to be undertaken at detailed design stage. For the purposes of quantification however, bends have been classified and some detailed design has been completed.

A swept path analysis has been performed on parts of the route proposed from the Port of Napier to the CHWF Site. Use of tracking curves relating to various radii of curvature for different bends overlaid on aerial photographs of critical alignments. This data has been corrected with the curve



categories. Additional Site surveys have been undertaken at a representative sample of curves in order to identify the potential and expected extent of earthworks. The analysis has identified locations where geometric upgrades, transposing of services and vegetation trimming are likely to be required. Areas of the route requiring geometric upgrades are focused around the turning capabilities of transporters that are to deliver turbine components to turbine Sites. The turbine blade is the component imposing the greatest geometrical constraint as it requires the largest radius for turning and has swing areas to consider due to the overhanging load. Structural and geometrical upgrades are expected along the proposed transportation route from the Port of Napier to CHWF.

The District Councils and NZTA have identified structures requiring further investigation due to strength and/or dimensional constraints. They have also assisted with identifying structures on the proposed route that will require upgrading to provide the dimension and/or strength to support the transported turbine components. Such improvements involve bridge strengthening by fitting additional steel work, deck thickening or replacement, additional beams and pier, or abutment strengthening. Dimensional upgrades range from removing handrails to reconstructing the bridge by widening the piers, abutment and carriage way to provide the required width necessary.

NZTA and District Councils have considered pavement parameters and have advised areas of concern. A process of observing quality will be implemented and where damage is seen rectification work will be done by the Consent Holder through the CTMP. It is planned that as part of the comprehensive and detailed planning for access to the Site, a trial drive over using a representative telescopic trailer will be undertaken to inform and confirm actual Site design requirements. The individual component parts of the routes are assessed in following sections.

1.3 State Highway Network Constraints SH2 from Napier to Eketahuna is generally seen as a viable route for the largest and heaviest turbine components. There are some 43 bridge or significant culvert structures in this length ranging from 2m culverts to 300m long river crossings. Height constraints exist under a road bridge near Norsewood with a 4.8m clearance (to be confirmed) and a rail overbridge just north of Eketahuna (4.39m). The Norsewood Bridge has an adjacent bypass route which is relatively short whilst the Eketahuna bypass is lengthy and difficult. There is however a more local at grade rail bypass adjacent to the rail structure that could be investigated in the event it were to emerge as a primary Port delivery route. Such a provision would require consultation with On-Track and some upgrading of the access and crossing provisioning. Notwithstanding this potential facility, there remain some additional network constraints east of Eketahuna to be considered. Based on the route being proposed, traffic would turn off before Eketahuna and this diversion would not be required. The route passes through various townships and there are several intersections within them that will require careful negotiation with the largest transporters. Areas of particular note are Eketahuna (for smaller vehicles where bypass route not required) Woodville, Dannevirke, Waipukurau, Hastings and Napier. Assessments indicate that all the intersections can be negotiated by either minor modification works, temporary removal of street furniture and or coupled with appropriate traffic management measures. Other bends on the route have generally relatively large (traversable) radii and can be negotiated without recourse to physical upgrade works.

Pahiatua, Hamua and Eketahuna have been identified as localities where exits from SH2 onto rural routes have been identified. The most favourable, Hamua, presents a simplified route when considering structures and geometric constraints. Eketahuna would produce a more direct route



after exiting SH2 but due to transport not being able to pass a rail over bridge the turn off at Eketahuna will not be utilised for turbine transportation. Pahiatua provides the earliest turn off from SH2 but the road network from Pahiatua Rongomai involves more constraints than that from Hamua and Eketahuna.

1.4 SH2: Napier to Eketahuna

The distance by road from Eketahuna to Napier is approximately 190km. The Over-dimension/Over-weight vehicle route travels through Pahiatua, Woodville, Dannevirke, Waipukurau, and Waipawa into Hastings and Napier. The NZTA route generally follows SH2 with some local bypass options in some townships.

At Pakipaki the designated heavy vehicle route switches to SH50A which travels around the northern fringe of Hastings, connecting to SH50 in Napier and travelling to the Port Napier through Ahuriri. Examples of the route, viewed from Eketahuna travelling towards Napier are shown below.

Photograph 1: SH2, Eketahuna

Photograph 2: Nireaha Road, Eketahuna (local heavy bypass)

Photograph 3: Height Restriction, SH2 north of Eketahuna. Note: an Over-dimension bypass may be available at this location subject to approval by On-Track.

Photograph 4: SH2, Pahiatua



Photograph 5: SH2 entering Woodville

Photograph 6: SH3 and SH2 Woodville

Photograph 7: SH2 Dannevirke

Photograph 8: Rawhiti Street Dannevirke (local heavy bypass)

Photograph 9: SH2, South of SH50 Intersection

Photograph 10: SH2 Waipukurau



Photograph 11: Railway Esplanade, Waipukurau (local heavy bypass)

Photograph 12: SH2 south of Waipawa

Photograph 13: SH2 Waipawa

Photograph 14: SH2/SH50A Intersection

Photograph 15: SH50A, Pakipaki

Photograph 16: SH50, Pakowhai



Photograph 17: Prebensen Drive, Napier

Photograph 18: SH2/SH50 Pandora, Napier

Photograph 19: SAH50 Ahuriri

Photograph 20: Port of Napier Gate, SH50

The photographs illustrate that the route between Eketahuna and Napier is generally flat with a gentle horizontal alignment.

SH2 from Napier to Pahiatua/Hamua has been identified as the most likely route for transporting the largest and heaviest turbine components at this stage of the planning. This is however not intended to rule out the possible use of alternate port access where such a need or opportunity becomes evident in future.

From the Port of Napier, turbine components can be transported on SH2 continuing on SH50 / SH50A and reconnecting at SH2 intersection south of Hastings. This would enable vehicles to bypass and/or exit highly populated areas. The alternative would be to travel on SH2 from the Port bypassing Hastings on St. Georges Road and Te Aute Road and continue on SH2 to Pahiatua and Hamua. An option for exit from the state highway route is proposed at these two locations.

An application for an Over-dimension permit has been submitted to NZTA, and is intended to be submitted to the local authorities also. These applications present the worst case loads to be transported. Dimensionally they are a combination of the extreme measures of turbine components taken by combining multiple manufacturers’ measurements and using the maximum dimensions across the lot. The same approach has been used for weight. Therefore it is important to note that the dimension and weight combinations are not necessarily the true representation of any one component made by a current manufacturer but rather a representation



of the full spectrum of manufacturers’ considered for turbine supply. This approach has provided to define an envelope for the transportation of Over-dimensioned components.

Having done this, NZTA replied bringing to light a number of constraints that they have identified requiring further investigation for the transport of turbine components to be possible. Proposals to overcome these constraints have been submitted to the branches of NZTA and will be developed to a final solution for approval prior to the commencement of the activity.

1.5 Pahiatua to Alfredton Road

This route follows Mangaone Valley Road, turns off SH2 onto Tiraumea Road and Kaitawa Road passing through the settlement of Rongomai to connect with Alfredton Road east of Eketahuna. The road crosses five significant culvert structures and six bridges. Most of the bridges have relatively short spans with the exception of a 48m long concrete arch structure over a tributary of the Tiraumea River. There may be a need for some minor intersection improvements off SH2 and at Alfredton Road although there have been some significant upgrades to this intersection recently.

1.6 Hamua Rongomai Road

Hamua Rongomai Road is approximately 14km south of Pahiatua and is an alternative route to Alfredton via Mangaone Valley Road. The road has three bridge structures two relatively short and a longer 60m crossing of the Makakahi River. Two (including the latter) are single-lane bridges. Access to the road off SH2 is via a wide sweeping turn through the intersection. These structures warrant further investigation.

1.7 Eketahuna to Alfredton

Alfredton is an 18km trip from Eketahuna along Alfredton Road. Alfredton Road has a sealed carriageway of between 6.0m and 6.5m and follows an alignment that is gently undulating with some horizontal curves. Some examples of the route are shown in the photographs below.

Photograph 21: Alfredton Road, Example 1

Photograph 22: Alfredton Road, Stock Moving



Photograph 23: Alfredton Road, entering Eketahuna

Photograph 24: Railway Crossing, Alfredton Road / Herbert Street, Eketahuna

Photograph 25: Herbert / Jones/Main Flush Roundabout, Eketahuna

Photograph 26: SH2/Main Street Eketahuna, looking north

As Alfredton Road enters Eketahuna it travels through a residential area, crosses a railway and connects to Herbert Road then Main Street to intersect with SH2.

The low height rail over bridge at Newman (north of Eketahuna) excludes the SH2 route between Hamua and Eketahuna as a haulage route for Over-dimension vehicles. As such, Alfredton Road between Eketahuna and Mangaone Valley Road is not intended to be used for the haulage of turbine components. It is however proposed to be used for typical construction vehicle movements and material supply where the occasional need arises.

Alfredton Road from Mangaone Valley Road to Alfredton is the most likely connection route through to Route 52 rather than Pa Valley Road as there is a challenging alignment mid way along Pa Valley Road. Three culverts and three bridges of varying width have been identified as requiring more particular assessments. One of the bridges approaching the Route 52 intersection has a single carriageway. The intersection with Mangaone Valley Road is currently a relatively wide sweeping bend. Alfredton Road connects to Route 52 at a tee-intersection. The intersection is relatively spacious however some minor seal widening may be necessary to accommodate Over-dimension vehicle tracking.



1.8 Route 52: North of Alfredton

From its intersection with Castle Hill Road in Alfredton, Route 52 has a sealed carriageway between 5.7 and 6.1m wide with some painted centreline and edge lines. Its alignment is generally flat with some undulations. East of Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Valley Road the carriageway narrows to 4.8m wide in some sections and the horizontal and vertical curvature increases.

Of particular note is the predominant use of Route 52 by tourists. This includes foreign tourists and the relatively frequent use of the route by campervans. Additionally, the route is recognised as a popular motorcycle tourist route, such as typically can involve groups of motorcyclists travelling through the area on weekends in particular. These characteristics are matters that will warrant particular recognition as part of the development of the Construction Traffic Management planning and briefing of local drivers.

Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Valley Road both intersect with Route 52 at uncontrolled tee-intersections. At the Waitawhiti Road intersection visibility is limited when looking from Waitawhiti Road to the west around a bend in Route 52. Both roads are sealed at their intersections with Route 52 and then unsealed as they travel up into the Site. Some examples of Route 52, Waitawhiti Road and Waihoki Road are shown in the photographs below.

Photograph 27: Route 52, east of Saunders Road

Photograph 28: Route 52, One-LaneBridge approximately 3km west of Saunders Road

Photograph 29: Route 52, east of Waitawhiti Road

Photograph 4: Route 30, east of Waihoki Valley Road



Photograph 31: Waitawhiti Road

Photograph 32: Waihoki Valley Road

There are a number of single and two-lane bridges, communities and schools along this route. Information provided by TDC shows a total of seven bridges and four significant culvert structures on this route. Route 52provides access to the northern turbine Clusters and the Waihoki Road and Waitawhiti Road Wind Farm Access Points.

There are four significant two-lane bridges some of which have multiple spans on Route 52 from Alfredton. The Route 52/Alfredton Road intersection is relatively spacious. This portion of the route has a relatively good alignment with only one or two bends identified where widening may be required. Some sections have been identified where upgrading will be required if they are to accommodate over-length vehicles, for example the 1km section located about 2.5km east of Waihoki Valley Road.

The northern most turbine Cluster A is proposed to be accessed from Rakaunui Road (a private access road off Route 52) subject to landowner agreement. Rakaunui Road is a metalled farm road with links to the proposed internal access roads. The straight sections of Rakaunui Road are 5m wide. Localised widening on corners and trimming of the crests are likely to be required to meet operable geometric parameters specified for the transport of turbine components. A reasonably steep section of the proposed alignment to the north of the farmyards will require further investigation at the detailed design phase. Some significant earthworks may be required to provide a suitable grade for transportation requirements. This section of the road leads to an elevated plateau. It is anticipated that some internal earthworks will be required for access, particularly in the areas of sloping terrain. Localised widening and re-grading of the existing farm tracks will also be needed along undulating ridgelines.

1.9 Waitawhiti and Waihoki Valley Roads

Waitawhiti Road accommodates two concrete bridges of 4.4m and 6.5m width. Extending south from Route 52, Waitawhiti Road provides for access to turbine Clusters B and C. Studies indicate that the road requires some minor upgrades at a few selected corners to achieve this. The main access to Clusters B will be from Waihoki Valley Road. A single-lane bridge and a large culvert are located on Waihoki Valley Road. A few bends have been identified that will require moderate widening and realignment work.



1.10 Route 52: Alfredton to Daggs Road

This is one proposed route from Alfredton to the Daggs Road Wind Farm Access Point. On this route are two culverts and a short bridge. The road alignment is considered to be generally adequate requiring minimal, if any widening. Access from Alfredton Road onto Route 52 is via a generous turn but some seal widening at this location would be beneficial given the potential high usage proposed for this route. The intersection with Daggs Road is relatively spacious but minor intersection improvements may be necessary to safely accommodate increased construction traffic flows.

1.11 Castle Hill Road, Alfredton Tinui Road and Manawa Road

Manawa Road, Alfredton-Tinui Road and Castle Hill Road form a route across the Site from Tinui in the south to Alfredton in the north. Several accesses to the CHWF are proposed along this route. Examples of the route viewed travelling from Tinui to Alfredton are shown in the following photographs.

As it leaves Tinui, Manawa Road has a sealed carriageway with a width of 6m and is generally straight and flat in alignment. East of Springhill Road there is a single lane bridge with a speed restriction of 10km/h for heavy vehicles. Beyond this point the carriageway narrows to between 5.0 and 5.7m and there are some tighter horizontal curves.

Approximately 2km south of the Alfredton-Tinui Road intersection, the carriageway changes to an unsealed formation and is about 5.7m wide.

Alfredton-Tinui Road rises up from Manawa Road and has a 5m wide unsealed carriageway which narrows to 4.7m by Woodstave Road. There are signs on Alfredton-Tinui Road warning of the presence of logging trucks and there are several forestry accesses along its length. Most of these accesses are signed as being for entry by permit only.

There are some low radius geometric alignments along Alfredton -Tinui Road which present some engineering challenges where these may warrant improvements.

West of the Tararua/Masterton District boundary, Castle Hill Road generally has an unsealed carriageway of 5.0m which widens to 6.5m near the Ngarata Road intersection. Approximately 3km east of this intersection Castle Hill Road becomes a sealed carriageway between 6.0m and 6.5m wide through to where it meets Route 52. The following photographs show examples of these roads viewed travelling from Tinui to Alfredton.

Photograph 33: Charles Street, Tinui

Photograph 34: Manawa Road, North of Tinui, one-lane

bridge



Photograph 35: Manawa Road, sealed carriageway

Photograph 36: Manawa Road, unsealed carriageway

Photograph 37: Alfredton-Tinui Road, at Manawa RoadIntersection

Photograph 38: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 1

Photograph 39: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 2 including one-lane bridge and private access

Photograph 40: Alfredton-Tinui Road, Example 3



Photograph 41: Castle Hill Road, Example 1

Photograph 42: Castle Hill Road / Ngarata Road Intersection

Photograph 43: Castle Hill Road, one-lane bridge

Photograph 44: Castle Hill Road

Route 52 at Alfredton connects to Castle Hill Road at a wide tee-intersection. As a principal construction traffic intersection it may warrant some enhancement. There appears to be sufficient space to make such improvements without the need for land take. Information supplied by the Tararua District Council indicates six bridges and a large culvert located on this road. One of the bridges is a reasonably significant two-lane structure 7.4m wide. The other five are smaller single-lane bridges 4.5m wide.

Castle Hill Road is to provide the primary route for access to turbine Clusters D, E, F and G as well as carry quarry traffic transporting aggregates to form the Internal Roading and other pavement construction elements. The numerous low radius bends and difficult vertical topography on the eastern side of the range in particular, make the task of upgrading the central portion of this road (to a standard suitable for large turbine components) challenging when compared with some of the other alternatives. Notwithstanding, it has been determined that Castle Hill Road is the preferred Over-weight and Over-dimension route for access to Clusters D, E, F, and G.

1.12 Daggs Road

Daggs Road is intended to be accessed from Route 52 via a relatively spacious intersection. There are no bridges or large culverts on this road. Daggs Road may provide access to turbine Clusters E and G. The first 2km of Daggs Road is reasonably straight after which the road



becomes increasingly steep and with low radius curves. This has been considered, however is not proposed as a turbine delivery route due to the significant earthworks quantities necessary to bring it up to a safe and useable standard. Some standard and legal truck movements may infrequent the road for local materials access to the southern part of Cluster G.

1.13 Masterton to Daggs Road

The route from Masterton to Daggs Road is proposed to be via Te Ore Ore Road, Te-Ore Ore Bideford Road and Whangaehu Valley Road. This route may be used to transport construction material and consumables from Masterton to Site lay down areas. At this stage of the planning it is not expected or currently planned to accommodate Over-weight or Over-dimension vehicle movements on this section of the network. Investigations indicate that this route can satisfactorily accommodate the expected and temporary increase in construction traffic movements without the need for significant alignment changes. Some minor and localised improvements may however be necessary.

1.14 Masterton to Manawa Road via Masterton-Castlepoint Road

This route is an alternative route which connects to Manawa Road providing access to southern Clusters E and F. Travel to this access on Masterton-Castlepoint Road is a 44km trip from Masterton to Tinui, then a further 10km along Manawa Road. On this route is a steel girder/ timber deck bridge with a posted load restriction, located 7km north of Tinui. This bridge in its current condition would not be suitable for regular heavy construction traffic. From Tinui north, the road has some low radius bends. If this route is to be used for regular access both the bridge and some bends are likely to require replacement or upgrade.

A review of the road safety history of Masterton-Castlepoint Road indicates that it has some potential safety issues, particularly on the eastern side of the range. This road has also been assessed as unsuitable (in its current form) for transport of turbine components due to the significant additional travel distances and the additional community exposure it would generate. It may however be used as an alternative route for construction traffic carting material and consumables to and from Masterton, and is currently used by logging trucks at times.

1.15 Eketahuna to the South

The distance by road between Eketahuna and Wellington central is approximately 140km. Over-dimension vehicles could travel along the posted New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Over-dimension/Over-weight vehicle route following SH2 from Wellington, through Lower Hutt, Upper Hutt and over the Rimutaka Range, although there are some notable physical restrictions and constraints that may warrant significant mitigation contributions. Not to preclude the potential future use of the route for some Port based movements, the route is not currently a primary consideration. Examples of the route, viewed from Wellington travelling towards Eketahuna are shown below.



Photograph 45: Aotea Quay, Wellington

Photograph 46: SH2, Hutt Road

Photograph 47: SH2, TotaraPark

Photograph 48: SH2, Rimutaka Range Example 1





Photograph 51: SH2 Entering Featherston

Photograph 52: SH2, Featherston Central

Photograph 53: SH2 in Greytown (south)

Photograph 54: SH2 in Greytown (central)

Photograph 55: SH2 in Carterton (south)

Photograph 56: SH2 in Carterton (central)



Photograph 57: SH2 between Carterton and Masterton

Photograph 58: SH2/Ngaumutawa Road, Masterton

Photograph 59: Ngaumutawa Road, Masterton (local heavy bypass)

Photograph 60: Paierau Road, Masterton (local heavy bypass)

Photograph 61: SH2 Approach to Eketahuna (looking south)

Photograph 62: SH2 Approach to Eketahuna (looking north)



Appendix C: Port Options for Turbine Delivery



1. Port Options for Turbine Delivery

The majority of wind turbine components are manufactured overseas and will be transported by ship to New Zealand. The components are then typically transported by road to the Site. The following sections consider the options for transport of materials between the Ports and the Site. The Ports that have been considered for delivery of large turbine components are:

� Port of Napier;

� CentrePort (Wellington) via Rimutaka;

� CentrePort (Wellington) via Palmerston North; and

� Port Taranaki;

Road transport route selection can be based on the following parameters:

� Distances from Ports to the CHWF Site;

� The terrain;

� Typical road and weather conditions;

� Traffic volumes and composition;

� The capacity of infrastructure components e.g. bridges and culverts, to accommodate the expected loads;

� The clearance between the loads and obstructions e.g. power lines, narrow bridges and tunnels;

� Clearance for turning manoeuvres particularly at intersections; and

� Potential to impact on communities not on the defined Over-dimension vehicle routes.

The Port of Napier, Port Taranaki and CentrePort Wellington are all potential landing points for the imported turbine components. Investigations have been undertaken for each of these Ports to determine the most likely route warranting further detailed assessment. This assessment is however not intended to preclude any of the Port options.

Table 1 below shows the results of a qualitative assessment matrix of each Port option against the primary transport decision influencing criteria. Each criteria is ranked as either the first preference (green), second preference (orange) or third preference (red).

CRITERIA CENTREPORT WELLINGTONVia Rimutaka

CENTREPORT WELLINGTON

Via Palmerston

North

PORT TARANAKI

PORT OF NAPIER

Travel Distance

Terrain

Complexity (intersections, clearances)

Typical Road and Weather Conditions

Infrastructure

Traffic Volumes

Table 1: Port Access Options Comparative Assessment Matrix



It can quite readily be seen from the summary that the Port of Napier indicates some advantages over the other options. The particular considerations relating to each of the options assessed are however further considered in the following sections.

1.1 Port of Napier Route

The Port of Napier is an advantageous Port option in terms of route assessment. Overall, this delivery route via SH2 is relatively simple and has been used previously for other CHWF Sites. Some areas may require minor upgrade work to fully accommodate Over-dimension vehicles. An application has been prepared by Aurecon to clearly identify the Over-dimension and Over-weight requirements for permit to transport on this route.

To allow for some flexibility in route choice, further investigation has been undertaken for state highway routes within the Hawke's Bay region. SH50A is the favoured route as it enables vehicles to bypass and/or exit highly populated areas sooner. The principal geometric constraint to travel along this section of roadway is due to the presence of roundabouts. A vehicle tracking assessment of the capability of the Over-dimension (long) loads to traverse the roundabouts has been made. The roundabout at the intersection of Taradale Road and SH2 has been taken as a representative example. The tracking requirements are shown on Figure 12 (Appendix A). The following key observations can be made:

� The vehicle tracking is able to traverse the roundabout with front and rear wheel combinations wholly within the formed carriageway surfaces;

� It may be necessary for the longest of the loads to engage manual steering for the rear bogies to ensure tracking remains wholly within the carriageway and this will require pausing in advance of the roundabout, in a lane to achieve this. The necessary traffic management control will however need to temporarily halt all entering traffic movements with the potential to conflict with the load, as it traverses the roundabout, as both entry, circulating and departure lanes will be required for the movement;

� The rear overhang and the centre of the long load (the blade) are expected to encroach in areas of the verge and centre roundabout island. This will necessitate the temporary removal of signage where it extends above the lowest point of the load.

Notwithstanding these encroachments above the road surface, it is evident that the movement is able to occur wholly within the road reserve and tracking within the carriageway space.

Consultation with NZTA has identified a section of the highway that is winding and of particular interest in terms of vehicle tracking. The Site is on SH2 between Tataramoa Road and School Road, about 8km north of Dannevirke. It involves a winding section of road dropping down to a bridge and rising up to Tataramoa Road as the vehicle travels to the south. A tracking assessment for the longest of the Over-dimension loads has been undertaken on this section of road. The set of plans are attached as Figures 13to 16(Appendix A) inclusive. They show the following:

� The carriageway is adequate in width to readily accommodate the moving vehicle;

� The approach alignments to the bridge are long enough to enable the vehicle to pass across the bridge within the bridge and barrier physical dimensions;

� The dimensions of tracking width that have been included on the figures show that on some of the curves up to 5.2m total tracking envelope is expected.

This assessment reinforces the level of moving traffic management that will be required as part of the Permit provisions for the loads. The envelope of travel is able to be maintained wholly within



the 7.0m main carriageway. There are additionally formed and sealed shoulders outside of this. Notably the bridge approach guard railing on one side minimises the available carriageway width, although at this location the vehicle is travelling relatively straight and minimal additional road width is required. It will therefore be necessary to put in place temporary opposing vehicle warning and in some restricted locations short term stops to avoid the potential for a collision between the load and opposing vehicles.

The geometry of the remainder of the state highway is generally able to accommodate the length and width of the Over-dimension loads using existing by-passes where necessary. There are however a number of constraints that exist along the route and which will be assessed as part of the Over-dimension and Over-weight vehicle permit requirements.

An analysis of bridge structures is underway to establish bridge loading capacities. Further analysis is also being progressed to determine particular operating conditions to enable the loads to be carried, and/or establish the need to develop temporary strengthening measures and possibly bring forward the planned replacement by NZTA and or the local authorities. This is predominantly a structural assessment that is being progressed with NZTA and Council engineering input.

Port of Napier has confirmed that it is able to provide for the berthing and unloading requirements for turbine components. Temporary laydown areas can also be provided within the Port boundary to store the turbine components until they are transported to Site. The Port has confirmed that laydown areas of 20,000 m2 can be provided within the Port boundary. This area is able to be secured by Port security. Should additional area be required, the Port of Napier has identified an external undeveloped site that can also be used, close to the Port.

1.2 CentrePort (Wellington) Route

Two options have been assessed in relation to the CentrePort option. Site access via the Rimutaka Hill route is relatively direct, however the Palmerston North option is about 60km longer. The Palmerston North route option has some similar traits to the Port of Taranaki option, and these issues put it in a slightly less favourable light.

CentrePort is the closest Port to the Site, as the crow flies. The most direct route is via SH2. Access from this Port to the Site would either be completely by road (several routes) or on rail and then by road. Routes from Wellington using SH1 include sections with very high traffic flows and several tight radius curves, steep grades, and other geometric considerations on the Rimutaka Hill Road from Upper Hutt to Featherston.

Upgrades to a section of the SH1 route are planned and in some cases already underway by NZTA, however the route is not expected to be suitable to accommodate the Over-dimension or Over-weight loads. The potential suitability remains an option for the purposes of this assessment however. The movement of Over-dimension / Over-weight vehicles will require a separate permit application process where it emerges as necessary.

Transhipment by rail to avoid the hill road has been assessed. Rail as a transport option is assessed in more detail later in this assessment.

1.3 Port Taranaki Route

Port Taranaki could be a suitable Port for turbine components delivery. This Port is furthest from the CHWF Site. This route is however complex with steep hills and it also presents a less direct



route. It is the most intricate, as the route passes through two major centres (Wanganui and Palmerston North). There is also an Over-weight restriction in place between Ashhurst and Woodville townships which means a diversion is required through road segments with constrained horizontal alignment. There are alternative routes which could be used as a by-pass however, these will take much longer to travel through. While this is an unlikely option, it is intended to remain as an alternative in the event of any future opportunities that may arise.

1.4 Alternative Transport Mode Options

Neither rail, barge or air transport usefully or practically assist with turbine component delivery in relation to this project. Infrastructure constraints and logistical complexities make these options impractical. Appendix C assesses the alternative transport mode options considered for the project. Notwithstanding this, the Genesis Energy intends to retain an open mind about future possibilities. Helicopter transport is possible in relation to the movement of smaller and lighter elements such as the transmission tower components. This assessment does not rely on alternate transport options.

Some principal alternative to road transport options have been assessed to determine the initial feasibility and potential for their adoption. The provisioning in relation to the alternatives are all based on different parameters. The physical component dimensions however are common to all options. These have been described in the preceding sections, and the principal alternate option assessments are set out as follows. Rail

An assessment of turbine components against the Kiwi Rail Freight Handling Code (September 2009) guidelines classifies the components as oversize (Over-dimension) and/or Over-weight. Over-dimension and Over-weight loads can be transported by rail however only with a permit that specifies conditions under which they may be carried. The following diagram taken from the code indicates the typical cross sectional envelope characteristics that are permitted.



Diagram 1: Standard Loading Rail Gauge

The gauge dimensions are reasonably limiting on rail at cross sectional maximums of 2.8m wide and 2.9m high). The diameter of the tower sections and the height and width dimensions of the nacelle (at 5.1m high and 4.97m wide) are significantly greater than the gauge envelope.

The maximum axel load limits for the relevant line lengths are shown in the following diagram:



Diagram 2: Rail Axel Load Limits

The capability for loaded rail transport to the Site is limited by the capacity of the section of the line generally between Masterton and about Palmerston North. The carrying capacity here is about 64 tonne, whereas the nacelle is likely to be in the range of 70 tonne and the transformer units are likely to be up to 200 tonne. The code also indicates that there is a maximum speed of 25km/h for loads over 40,000kg (40 tonne).

Freight movements are relatively restricted and freight runs, particularly within the Wairarapa region, are irregular due to low demand. At present the freight service that runs through Eketahuna is not in operation and the freight service currently runs Napier - Palmerston North - Wellington - Masterton. Discussions with Kiwi Rail have identified a constraining tunnel at the Manawatu Gorge near Woodville that currently causes ‘bottle-necking’ in the rail network. The tunnel is large enough for standard size container loads only and therefore limits transport through it to freight of a standard loading gauge. The Standard Loading Gauge from Section 22 of the Kiwi Rail Freight Handling Code, “Oversize and Overweight Loads”, specifies a maximum width of 2.8m and maximum height of 2.9m for 750mm out from the centre-line. Further departure from the centre-line results in a decrease in the permissible height. Such limitations in



infrastructure prevent transit of turbine components from practically being achieved from Woodville to Eketahuna.

There may be some capacity for transport of smaller components by rail, however much of this may also be transportable on loads that will be travelling by road. Some of the smaller materials may well be available locally, and the rail is not closely located to the Site. It is therefore evident that there is little potential advantage in pursuing the opportunity of transport by rail for this project.

Barge

Barging has been considered. The coast closest to the CHWF is managed by the Greater Wellington Regional Council Harbour Master. The area managed by the Harbour Master extends from the Otaki River to the Mataikona River north of Castlepoint. The Castlepoint foreshore is shown in the following diagram both within the small enclosed harbour area south of the peninsular and on the more open foreshore beach on the north side of the peninsular. Castlepoint Road departs from the northwest end of the foreshore, westbound and inland:

Diagram 3:Castlepoint Foreshore

In undertaking this assessment, the Wellington Harbour Masters office (Grant Nelder), and the barging services supplier (Chris Douglas at Seaworks) have been consulted. In broad terms the observations, advice and operating conditions they describe can be summarised as follows:

� The sand area on the beach is relatively hard packed and suitable for light vehicle travel;

� The tidal movement is between about 20m and 70m longitudinally, which has the potential to affect the length of any potential structure to be developed;



� The whole coast is quite an exposed coast presenting a risk of delay to delivery of materials from the sea;

� The maximum wave height typically suitable for barging access to the foreshore is about 0.5m, based on previous experience of Seaworks. There is no current wave data at this location to compare it against, however the experience of the operators indicates it may be frequently greater than this;

� Both CentrePort and Napier are about 110 Nautical miles from Castlepoint. At an operating speed of 9 knots per hour, a barge would take about 12 hours to make the journey;

� It is highly likely that a structure would be needed, including cranes to move goods from the barge to loading and transport equipment on the foreshore, and significant works would be likely there to receive the loads;

� The foreshore and further inland area adjoining is not readily accessible for development of a receiving area. New roading would have to be established and this is close to the established housing. Due to the inland topography beyond the sand dune line, it is possible that any access roading would need to be across the foreshore. This has the potential to significantly impact upon the current recreational use of the beach for swimming and also for local boat launching activities;

� Previous experience has indicated that CentrePort is limited in its receiving and lay down space, and hence other proposals have utilised the PictonPort for this reason;

� In addition to the seaward development needs and the climate constraints, works would be required on the inland road between Castlepoint and the Wind Farm Access Points. This is likely to involve improvements to about 21km of road between Castlepoint and Tinui. Additional works would be required on the Castle Hill Road between Tinui and the Wind Farm Access Points, and also for access to the Daggs Road and Route 52 Wind Farm Access Points. This work would likely be in addition to works required west of the ranges to source in other materials that are available locally, such as from Masterton.

Barging would require setting up a temporary wharf (or finger structures) to facilitate docking and loading/unloading. This would involve Regional Council consent. The relatively exposed east coast has been assessed. It does not appear on the surface of the assessment that barging is a suitable or practically feasible option. There is an increased project risk associated with barging in exposed waters and additional transhipment costs are expected to make this option unfavourable. Another difficulty involved with barging is inadequate road access in terms of formation and connectivity from the coast to the Site. Barging would require double handling of heavy CHWF components and upgrading of Castle Hill Road east of the Site. This work would be additional to the structural rehabilitation and cross-section upgrades that will remain necessary west of the Site. Barging is therefore a not considered as a favoured alternative at this time and will therefore not form part of the approvals sought for the purposes of this consent.

Air

An assessment has also been undertaken of the potential to transport turbine components by helicopter, especially over narrow winding sections of road. A Chinook twin-propeller helicopter or a Sikorsky Tarhe “Skycrane” have a maximum lifting capacity of around 9-10 tonnes (t). This is insufficient for even the turbine blades, at up to about 13.5t blade weight. Such heavy lift helicopters are not routinely available in New Zealand, with the best available capacity more typically being around 3.5t. The windy characteristic of this Site that makes it desirable from a CHWF perspective is also an environmental counter-restraint on the practicality of adopting an air



transport for the largest components. Smaller and lighter elements like the transmission towers may however be constructed using the assistance of helicopters.

1.5 Summary

Given the particular size and weight characteristics of the loads, travel via the Port of Napier appears to be the most straightforward and carry with it the least travel risk. In this case, it is proposed that the Over-dimension loads exit SH2 at Pahiatua and/or Hamua and then travel onto Tiraumea Road which connects to Kaitawa Road. From Kaitawa Road to Mangaone Valley Road, Alfredton Road and then distributed to the various Wind Farm Access Points. From Alfredton, the turbine components are to be transported to the various Wind Farm Access Points via Route 52, Castle Hill Road or Daggs Road.

Figures 17 to 22 (Appendix A) show Over-dimension and Over-weight vehicle routes between Napier and Wellington. Figure 22 (Appendix A) shows possible locations to exit SH2 at Pahiatua.

The Port of Napier exhibits the most favourable outcomes in the areas of terrain, complexity of the route, potential for weather conditions to affect travel along the route and in the state of transport structure and its suitability to accommodate the weights and lengths of loads to be expected.

Port of Napier is in the mid-range of assessment in so far as travel distance and traffic volumes are concerned. Port of Taranaki is furthest from the Site by about 100km. There are notable traffic volumes on the state highway near Napier and some highly utilised sections of road that are likely to warrant a managed travel response. The route is also subject to some identifiable peaking over holiday periods, and a similar trend is notable in relation to travel out of Wellington. Overall however, port of Napier appears to be the most advantageous on the basis of the criteria summary assessed.

An alternative local Site access route has also been considered from Alfredton. It involves remaining on the state highway, south to Masterton and uses the Te Ore Ore Bideford Road. This option has arisen in relation to the extent of upgrading that is likely to be required on Daggs Road, Wairiri Road and Mairingi Road. The route does require some significant additional travel, and also significant upgrading would still be required to Mairingi Road in particular.

The alternative route does present some significant construction challenges both for the Over-dimension and Over-weight transport requirements. To this end, further alternatives have been investigated. It has been determined that Castle Hill Road is the preferred route to provide access to Clusters E and F, and Daggs Road for the provision of access to Cluster G only.

Alternative modes of transport have been considered. These options are not ruled out at this stage however, they are not included in the assessment.



Appendix D: Road Safety Assessment



1. Road Safety Assessment

The following sub-sections assess the relevant national, regional and Local Road safety trends.

1.1 National Road Safety

At a national level, the government’s National Road Safety Strategy produced by the Ministry of Transport sets out the objectives for road safety outcomes. The current guiding document is Safer Journeys, the strategy for the next 10 years to 2020. The principal strategic road safety focus areas are built on four identified pillars as follows:

� Safer roads and roadsides;

� Safer speeds;

� Safer vehicles; and

� Safer road use.

Many actions specific to each area, and primary responsibility for implementation of these actions sits with NZTA and the regional and territorial authorities. Of course, there is a high level obligation on the road user also to adjust their ways.

1.2 Regional Road Safety

NZTA publishes briefing notes on road safety issues for each district in New Zealand. The most recently available notes at the time of preparing this assessment relate to the period 2004-2008. The districts of Tararua and Masterton have been considered as being most relevant to the CHWF Site. The graphs below sourced from NZTA briefing notes, compare the percentages of the major crash types at the national level against those within the Tararua and Masterton Districts and other similar authorities.

Graph 1: Percentage of Crashes 2004 to 2008 - Tararua District

As can be seen in Graph 1, failure to give way/stop crashes within Tararua are higher than other similar authorities but about half the national rate. Alcohol related crashes in Tararua are notably



higher than both the national statistic and that of similar authorities. Speed related crashes in Tararua are slightly higher than the national rate but some 5% lower than similar authorities.

The related Masterton data is shown in the following graph.

Graph 2: Percentage of Crashes 2004 to 2008 – Masterton District

Graph 2 shows that failure to give way/stop crashes in the Masterton District are close to but slightly lower than the national rate comprising almost 25% of crashes. When compared to the national rate and other similar authorities, Masterton has a significantly better record of alcohol related crashes. Like Tararua, speed related crashes in Masterton are slightly higher than the national rate but some 5% lower than other similar authorities.

Further regional road safety characteristics are set out and assessed in the following sections.

In the Tararua District the major issues are loss of control at bends, intersections, vulnerable road users (motorcyclists) and alcohol. High motorcycle accident location or routes are SH2 between Woodville and Dannevirke and in the Pahiatua area, SH2 through Tutaekara Road to Makomako Road.

The main issues in the Masterton District are rear-end/obstruction, loss of control, vulnerable road users (pedestrians and cyclists) and alcohol. Areas with high numbers of pedestrian crashes in Masterton are SH2, Queen Street, Dixon Street, Lincoln Road / Queen Street and Renall Street / Pownall Street. Generally these streets will have little to do with traffic activity generated by the proposal.

1.3 Tararua District

During the most recent five year crash review period, 60% of crashes within the Tararua District occurred due to loss of control, 26% of crashes occurred at intersections, 15% of injury crashes involved vulnerable road users and 18% were alcohol related.

Over the five year period, these crashes resulted in 15 deaths, 82 serious injuries and 228 minor injuries. There were a further 356 non-injury crashes reported.



The graph below shows the trend in fatal and serious injury crashes within the Tararua District from 1999 to 2008.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

No.

of C

rash

es

Serious

Fatal

Graph 3: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Trends – Tararua District

From Graph 3 it can be seen that the total number of fatal and serious injury crashes has remained steady for the last four years. However, it also shows a general increasing trend over the last five year period.

NZTA recommends a number of particular road improvement programs be developed across the district. Some of the key programs that have a potential relevance to construction traffic associated with the development proposal include:

Establish programme to review, upgrade and maintain warning signs, markings and delineation;

Maintain roadsides clear of hazards and provide side protection where appropriate;

Widen carriageways and seal shoulders to provide additional vehicle wander; and

Monitor and maintain pavement surfaces to provide good standards for skid resistance.

These district recommendations warrant consideration in the development of mitigation measures relating to the construction and operating vehicle movement effects.

1.4 Masterton District

During the five year crash review period, rear-end or obstruction on the roadway type crashes were the most common crash type in the Masterton District representing 35% of all crashes. Some 47% of all injury crashes occurred due to loss of control, 39% involved vulnerable road users and 11% were alcohol related.

Over the five year period, these crashes resulted in 15 deaths, 82 serious injuries and 228 minor injuries. There were a further 356 non-injury crashes reported. The graph below shows the trend in fatal and serious injury crashes within the Masterton District from 1999 to 2008.



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

No.

of C

rash

es

Serious

Fatal

Graph 4: Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Trends – Masterton District

Graph 4 shows that the number of fatal crashes has been gradually decreasing over the last three years. However, the latest five year trends show both the number of serious injury crashes and the total serious and fatal crashes combined to be increasing. No fatalities occurred in the Masterton District in the years from 2002 and 2005.

1.5 Local Road Safety

The NZTA Crash Analysis System (CAS) has been used to extract information about the road safety history of the local area and the likely transport routes to the Site. Figure 9 shows the distribution of crash Clusters along the expected transport route from the Port of Napier to the Wairarapa, and including the route over the Rimutaka Hill to Upper Hutt. The crash search covered the five year period from 2005 to 2009 inclusive. Most of the Clusters of five crashes or more occur in the urban areas of Napier, Hastings, Masterton and Upper Hutt.

Figure 10 (Appendix A) shows intersection and mid-block injury crash locations between Pahiatua and Masterton. Injury crashes on the proposed transport routes are shown in the following Table 1.



Table 1: Injury Crashes on Potential Site Access Routes

Table 1 shows that Masterton-Castlepoint Road in the Masterton District has had the highest number of crashes in the past five years. Other roads with comparatively notable crash records are Whangaehu Valley Road and Alfredton Road.

As can also be seen from Table 1, except for a single crash, all injury crashes occurred on road mid-block sections. Locations on the proposed transport routes where injury crashes were recorded are described in more detail below. The notable Masterton-Castlepoint Road and Whangaehu Valley Road include graphs to compare observed crash rates with national averages for their mid-block sections. Alfredton Road

Four injury crashes were recorded on Alfredton Road between SH2 and Route 52. No crash Clustering (within a 50m radius) was observed along this road. Crashes comprised two serious and three minor injury crashes. The predominant crash type on this road is loss of control whilst turning. Road condition was reported as a contributing factor to two of these crashes. All crashes were single vehicle crashes related to the road environment. There is no section of the road with Clustering that may highlight a particular localised road safety of concern.

DISTRICT INTERSECTION OR MID-BLOCK LOCATION

CRASH SEVERITY TOTAL INJURY

CRASHES Minor Serious Fatal

Tararua

Alfredton Road 2 2 0 4

Castle Hill Road 0 0 0 0

Daggs Road 0 0 0 0

Hamua Rongomai Road 0 0 0 0

Kaitawa Road 1 0 0 1

Mangaone Valley Road 1 0 0 1

Maringi Road 1 0 0 1

Route 52 2 0 0 2

Waihoki Valley Road 0 0 0 0

Wairiri Road 0 0 0 0

Waitawhiti Road 0 0 0 0

Masterton

Alfredton-Tinui Road 0 0 0 0

Manawa Road 2 0 0 2

Masterton-Castlepoint Road 17 6 1 24

Te Ore Ore Bideford Road 2 0 0 2

Te Ore Ore Bideford Road/Black Road 1 0 0 1

Te Ore Ore Road 3 0 0 3

Whangaehu Valley Road 4 1 0 5



Kaitawa Road

One minor injury crash was recorded on Kaitawa Road. It occurred on the mid-block section between Mangaramarama Road and Mangaone Valley Road. The crash type was attributed to road conditions. The observed injury crash rate is lower than the national average for the road type.

Mangaone Valley Road

One minor injury crash occurred on Mangaone Valley Road some 2km south of Hamua Rongomai Road. The crash rate is typical for the road type.

Maringi Road

A single minor injury crash occurred on Maringi Road 2.5km north of the Wairiri Road intersection. The crash involved a head on collision by two vehicles. Contributing crash factors were limited visibility around a curve and loss of control on the unsealed road.

Route 52

Two minor injury crashes occurred on Route 52 between Alfredton Road and Huia Road. Both were single vehicle crashes attributed to loss of control whilst turning.

When analysed, the crash rate for both sections of Route 52 where the crashes occurred were higher than the national average for typical roads. This is because of relatively low traffic flows over short mid-block sections. Analysis of Route 52 as a single mid-block shows an expected road safety performance when compared to national average rates. With only two minor injury crashes, the result is within a reasonable expectation for variability in the theoretical assessment methodology.

Manawa Road

Two minor injury crashes occurred on Manawa Road between Alfredton-Tinui Road and Tinui Township. One involved a vehicle which lost control whilst cornering and the other collided with traffic in the opposite direction as it crossed into the wrong lane whilst cutting a corner on a bend. The observed crash rate is higher than typical on this road although due to the low total number of crashes little can be derived from this.

Masterton-Castlepoint Road

Masterton-Castlepoint Road displayed the highest number of crashes with 24 recorded. All crashes occurred on mid-block sections with no intersection crashes recorded and all occurred on mid-block sections between Te Ore Ore Road and Manawa Road. There was one fatal, six serious and 18 minor injury crashes recorded. The recurring crash type was loss of control while turning. The principal contributing factor for this crash type was high speeds. Alcohol was also reported as a contributing factor to three crashes. Road surface condition was cited as the factor for a high proportion of crashes also. A number of these crashes occurred on the unsealed sections of the road where the transition from sealed to unsealed occurred.

A safety analysis of each section has been carried out to determine the performance of the section against national average rates for similar road types. The road has been broken down into segments based on the daily traffic volume and other road characteristics such as terrain and road width.



Graph 5 below shows a comparison of expected crash rates for this road environment against the observed crash rates. As can be seen, most sections of Masterton-Castlepoint road had no crashes recorded or less than typical crash rates. Road sections that indicated higher injury crash rates than the national average for the road type are as follows:

� Section 4: Maungahina Road to Letts Road

� Section 10: Te Parae Road to Te Kanuka Road

� Section 12: Blairlogie-Langdale to Adams Peak Road

� Section 16: Langdale Road to Peaks Road

� Section 20: Tinui Valley Road to McLaughlin Drive

� Section 21: McLaughlin Drive to Mataikonia Road

� Section 22: Mataikonia Road to Guthrie Crescent

Masterton-Castlepoint Road Mid-block Injury Crash Rates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Road Section

Inju

ry C

rash

Rat

e/10

0mvk

t

Expected ICRObserved ICRFull ExpectedFull Observed

Observed Injury Crash Rate - Full Length

Expected Injury Crash Rate - Full Length

Graph 5: Observed and Expected Injury Crash Rates on Masterton-Castlepoint Road

Crash clustering is observed in Sections 12, 16 and 20. Section 4 from Maungahina Road to Letts Road also showed some clustering with three injury crashes occurring over its 2km length. Section 12 between Blairlogie-Langdale Road and Adams Peak Road had six injury crashes occur over 3.3km length of road. Similarly, Sections 10, 16, 20 and 21 had crash Clusters which occurred within a relatively short mid-block section of Masterton-Castlepoint Road. This explains why the graph shows these sections (with relatively low traffic flows) as having crash rates much higher than the national average for similar road types. The analysis is based on 100 million vehicle kilometres travelled (100MVKT). The locality and incidence is noteworthy, however the relatively low number of crashes in each section of road is susceptible to significant variation in the theoretical evaluations. The section of road likely to be used for access in relation to the Site is between Section 1 which begins near Masterton and Section 17 which ends at Tinui Township.



Analysing the entire length of Masterton-Castlepoint as a single mid-block indicates the road to perform better than the national average. The observed crash rate is 20.9 crashes per 100MVKT compared to a national average of 24.2 per 100MVKT for the road type.

Of the injury crashes which occurred on Masterton-Castlepoint Road, 88% were single vehicle crashes related to the road environment. Overall it is concluded that this road generally has a reasonable road safety record however, sections of road highlighted above may warrant further investigation and possibly some improvement work. However, at this stage, the road is not included in the proposed construction and haulage routes. Traffic generated by the CHWF is not expected on this on this section of road and will not impact on the safety of this road.

Te Ore Ore Bideford Road

Two minor injury crashes were recorded on Te Ore Ore Bideford Road between Masterton-Castlepoint Road and Whangaehu Valley Road. One crash occurred at the Black Rock Road intersection. This resulted from a vehicle attempting to overtake whilst the one in front turned into the side road. A faulty indicator was cited as the crash factor. The fatal injury crash occurred 850m north of Stoddarts Road. It is cited as occurring when a strong gust of wind blew a person on the back of a ute onto the road and they received fatal injuries as a result of this fall. .

Te Ore Ore Road

Three minor injury crashes occurred on Te Ore Ore Road between SH2 and Masterton-Castlepoint Road. Crash types and factors are varied with no particular type showing prominence. There is no crash Clustering observed and overall Te Ore Ore Road has a fairly typical road accident record for the road type albeit, there is always scope for improvement.

Whangaehu Valley Road

All crashes on Whangaehu Valley Road occurred on mid-block sections. No intersection crashes were recorded over the search period. Crashes included one serious injury and four non-injury crashes. The recurring crash type is loss of control associated with turning manoeuvres which comprises some 80% of crashes or four out of the five crashes. Driver inexperience was cited as being a contributing factor to two of these crashes. Again road surface condition was a reoccurring contributing factor. One of the five crashes involved collision with an animal.

Whangaehu Valley Road was divided into four sections for analysis purposes as follows:

� Section 1: Te Ore Ore Bideford Road to Ditton Road

� Section 2: Ditton Road to Grahams Road

� Section 3: Grahams Road to Clelands Road

� Section 4: Clelands Road to District Boundary

Graph 6 below shows a comparison of expected crash rates for this road environment against the observed crash rates.



Whangaehu Valley Road (Mid-block) Injury Crash Rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4Road Section

Rep

orte

d In

jury

Cra

shes

/100

mvk

t

Expected Crash Rate

Observed Crash Rate

Graph 6: Observed and Expected Injury Crash Rates, Whangaehu Valley Road

Crash clustering is observed in Section 1 of Whangaehu Valley Road some 4km north of Te Ore Ore Bideford Road. No other clusters are observed. Sections 3 and 4 each have had a single crash recorded in the five year study period. They both have relatively low traffic flows of about 100vpd and therefore display higher crash rates than the national average. Section 4 is prominent because of low traffic flow coupled with a short mid-block length. When analysed as a single mid-block, Whangaehu Valley Road has an injury crash rate of 90.8 injury crashes per 100MVKT compared to a national average of 27.6 crashes per 100MVKT. This indicates that there may be areas of concern along this route in terms of road safety particularly on Section 1 between Te Ore Ore Bideford Road and Ditton Road where crash Clustering is observed. It is concluded that sections of this road may warrant further investigation to identify particular road safety issues and possibly some improvement work.

Local Road Safety Summary

The Accident Prediction Model from the EEM was used to determine the typical rate for injury crashes at intersection and mid-block locations within the Tararua and Masterton Districts. Results are shown in the following Table 2.



ROAD NAME LOCATION

TYPICAL INJURY CRASH RATE / ANNUM

OBSERVED INJURY

CRASH RATE / ANNUM

Alfredton Road SH2 to Route 52 0.25 0.2

Mangaone Valley Road Mangaramaram Road to Mangaone Valley Road 0.1 0.2

Route 52

Flat Bush Road to Settlement Road 0.1 0.2

Bartons Line to Daggs Road 0.0 0.2

Pa Valley Road to Saunders Road 0.1 0.2

Wallace to Waitawhiti Road 0.1 0.2

Masterton-Castle Hill Road

Te Ore Ore Road to Te Weraiti Road 0.2 0.2

Te Weraiti Road to Letts Road 0.9 0.8

Letts Road to Te Parae Road 0.2 0.2

Te Parae Road to Te Kanuka Road 0.3 0.2

Te Kanuka Road to Blairlogie-Langdale Road 0.4 0.6

Blairlogie-Langdale Road to Adams Peak Road 0.1 1.0

Adams Peak Road to Langdale Road 0.3 0.2

Langdale Road to Peaks Road 0.2 0.4

Peaks Road to Blackhill Road (Tinui) 0.1 0.0

Te Ore Ore Bideford Road TeOreOre to Te Ore Ore Settlement Road 0.1 0.2

Black Rock Road to Caves Road 0.1 0.4

Whangaehu Valley Road

Te Ore Ore Bideford Road to Ditton Road 0.1 0.8

Grahams Road to Clelands Road 0.1 0.2

Cleland Road to District Boundary 0.0 0.2

Table 2: Injury Crash Rates

As described in preceding sections, there are sections on the road network that have been analysed to have injury crash rates that are higher than the national average for the road type. However analysing the full lengths of the roads as single mid-blocks does indicate lower rates than national average rates. Very few mid-block sections have crash Clustering within 50m and the only road section area that may need some attention based on the recent road accident history is Masterton-Castlepoint Road between Blairlogie-Langdale and Adams Peak Road. A number of the rates above indicate rates above the national average. Regard is warranted in relation to this trend collectively across all sites as a cumulative observation. Caution is however necessary in analysing individual sections of road where the total number of crashes is low and a single incident over a five year period can significantly alter the comparative result.

Overall, it can be concluded that there are some patterns of individual driver behavior and contributing road environments that appear to be prevalent in the statistics. Consideration of these effects will be important in assessing the need for any mitigation on roads where Site generated traffic is to be added.



Appendix E: Indicat ive Construct ion Programmes:

� High Intensity Construction Programme

� Medium Intensity Construction Programme

� Low Intensity Construction Programme



High Intensity – 1 crane 2 team - 159 weeks (3 years)



Medium Intensity – 1 crane 1 team - 247 weeks (4.7 years)



Low Intensity – 1 crane 1 team - 354 weeks (6.8 years)



Appendix F: Trip Generation & Distribution Analysis:

� High Intensity Construction Programme

� Medium Intensity Construction Programme

� Low Intensity Construction Programme

� Graph showing Active Clusters

� Calculation of Total Trips per Cluster

Trip

Dis

trib

utio

n A

naly

sis

- Hig

h In

tens

ity 2

Tea

ms

Mat

eria

ls in

put b

oxes

10t T

ruck

to 3

0t T

ruck

and

Tra

iler

Sect

ion

1 R

oute

52

Wes

t20

%80

%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

TRU

CK

MO

VEM

ENTS

(2-w

ay)

(80:

20)

(30t

:10t

) tru

ck ra

tio fo

r gra

vel,

cem

ent &

san

dD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

275

2566

751

333

Sect

ion

Gra

vel

Stee

lC

emen

tW

ater

Sand

Con

cret

e C

able

sTr

ans

Line

Dru

ms

Alfr

edto

n Q

uarr

yO

H li

nes

Pole

sTo

tal

EBoP

TO

TAL

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck4

1820

3640

151

333

3640

1437

066

270

3258

1866

755

8184

917

9083

640

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

1171

914

372

3696

026

8714

3734

333

5301

1988

017

2685

3325

1092

0117

9011

0990

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

03

1689

612

2865

715

695

2423

9088

1726

8533

2554

590

054

590

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r50

3313

6627

420

064

1458

780

1863

828

7810

792

00

00

5461

10

5461

0C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

05

1437

395

30

013

250

1631

1013

330

2686

30

2686

0To

tal

31,5

1963

,037

615

680

6500

2744

6900

012

061

1249

684

105

010

011

8769

3477

1222

507

027

7311

7616

333

5169

7100

4545

043

3268

40

3268

08

7280

1473

653

026

5171

0032

240

2319

236

019

240

Sect

ion

2R

oute

52

Cen

tral

90

2340

915

035

780

3537

035

6941

069

40M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

1027

253

00

013

30

00

00

2738

60

2739

0D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

198

1848

036

960

110

016

667

00

00

00

1666

70

1667

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

313

4326

87`

120

2340

915

035

780

3537

035

6940

069

40C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r11

719

1437

1366

640

1248

052

270

2239

80

00

00

1067

450

1067

40W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k10

317

167

3433

3D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

4026

5153

01C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

5099

4019

880

Tota

l50

,299

100,

599

100L

Tur

bine

layo

ut

Sect

ion

3R

oute

52

East

of W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dA

32M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

B38

Tota

l tru

ck v

olum

e on

eac

h se

ctio

nD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9184

4816

896

C19

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

161

412

28D

54R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nC

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r5

329

657

E25

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4778

4815

695

F29

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r18

1212

2423

G45

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k23

4544

9088

Tota

l24

2To

tal

22,9

9445

,988

Roa

d Se

ctio

ns U

sed

(1 =

on

rout

e, 0

= n

ot)

Sect

ion

4W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r10

710

032

2006

4A

41

11

1St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

272

914

58B

31

11

11

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

639

078

0C

21

1W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k56

9319

1863

8D

11

1D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2214

3928

78E

71

11

1C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

2753

9610

792

F6

11

11

1To

tal

27,3

0554

,611

G5

11

1EB

oP1

11

Sect

ion

5W

aita

whi

ti R

d%

Roa

d U

sage

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

7771

8714

373

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck1

477

953

A 4

36%

49%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%13

%C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

B3

62%

49%

0%10

0%10

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

16%

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0C

20%

0%0%

0%0%

20%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

8%D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

1066

313

25D

10%

0%0%

0%0%

19%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

22%

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

E7

0%0%

0%0%

0%48

%41

%0%

0%10

0%0%

0%10

%To

tal

8,32

616

,652

F6

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

%59

%10

0%0%

0%10

0%0%

12%

G5

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%0%

100%

19%

EBoP

2%2%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%Se

ctio

n 6

Cas

tle H

ill R

d10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r84

7840

1568

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

832

5065

00To

tal n

o. o

f trip

s (F

igur

e 25

)C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r21

1372

2744

Clu

ster

Stag

e 1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

207

3450

069

000

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wks

)C

onst

ruct

dur

atio

n (d

ays)

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wor

king

day

s)D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9160

3012

061

A 4

29,8

0754

,590

54,5

900

00

00

00

00

14,1

1450

.29

380

326

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k31

6248

1249

6B

352

,040

54,6

100

54,6

1026

,860

00

00

00

016

,761

48.0

036

431

2To

tal

59,2

4011

8,48

1C

20

00

00

24,9

000

00

00

08,

380

47.5

736

130

9D

10

00

00

23,5

430

00

00

023

,818

41.7

132

027

4E

70

00

00

58,3

7013

,447

00

27,3

900

011

,027

54.7

141

135

2Se

ctio

n 7

Alfre

dton

Tin

ui R

dF

60

00

00

11,9

6019

,233

19,2

400

029

,170

012

,791

74.7

155

147

2M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

G5

00

00

00

00

6,94

00

06,

940

19,8

4848

.43

367

315

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

EBoP

1,79

01,

790

00

03,

477

00

00

00

067

.43

473

405

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1387

2773

Tota

l Tru

ck M

vmts

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

958

811

76C

heck

sum

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4981

6716

333

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r39

2584

5169

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k18

3550

7100

Aver

age

Dai

ly T

rips

(Fig

ure

25)

Tota

l16

,276

32,5

51C

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nM

axim

um p

er C

lust

erA

492

168

168

00

00

00

00

043

168

Sect

ion

8Ti

nui R

dB

316

717

50

175

860

00

00

00

5417

5M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

C2

00

00

080

00

00

00

2780

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r39

3640

7280

D1

00

00

086

00

00

00

8787

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck2

737

1473

E7

00

00

016

638

00

780

031

166

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

532

765

3F

60

00

00

2541

410

062

027

62W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

G5

00

00

00

00

220

022

6363

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r20

1325

2651

EBoP

44

00

09

00

00

00

0C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

1835

5071

00To

tal

9,57

919

,157

Sect

ion

9D

aggs

Rd

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

00

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

311

7023

40C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r7

457

915

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2717

8935

78C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

3,41

76,

833

Sect

ion

10M

airin

gi R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r14

613

627

2725

3St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

166

133

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l13

,693

27,3

86

Sect

ion

11Ta

naw

a R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r67

6253

1250

7St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

5083

3316

667

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l14

,587

29,1

73

Sect

ion

12R

oute

52

Sout

hM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1170

2340

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

745

791

5W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k54

9000

1800

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2717

8935

78C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

12,4

1724

,833

Sect

ion

13Al

fredt

on R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r22

220

720

4144

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

1462

4012

480

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

4026

1352

27W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r16

911

199

2239

8C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

40,7

7281

,545

Clu

ster

Num

ber o

f Tu

rbin

es

Trip

Dis

trib

utio

n A

naly

sis

- Med

ium

Inte

nsity

1 T

eam

Mat

eria

ls in

put b

oxes

10t T

ruck

to 3

0t T

ruck

and

Tra

iler

Sect

ion

1 R

oute

52

Wes

t20

%80

%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

TRU

CK

MO

VEM

ENTS

(2-w

ay)

(80:

20)

(30t

:10t

) tru

ck ra

tio fo

r gra

vel,

cem

ent &

san

dD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

275

2566

751

333

Sect

ion

Gra

vel

Stee

lC

emen

tW

ater

Sand

Con

cret

e C

able

sTr

ans

Line

Dru

ms

Alfr

edto

n Q

uarr

yO

H li

nes

Pole

sTo

tal

EBoP

TO

TAL

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck4

1820

3640

151

333

3640

1437

066

270

3258

1866

755

8184

917

9083

640

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

1171

914

372

3696

026

8714

3734

333

5301

1988

017

2685

3325

1092

0117

9011

0990

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

03

1689

612

2865

715

695

2423

9088

1726

8533

2554

590

054

590

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r50

3313

6627

420

064

1458

780

1863

828

7810

792

00

00

5461

10

5461

0C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

05

1437

395

30

013

250

1631

1013

330

2686

30

2686

0To

tal

31,5

1963

,037

615

680

6500

2744

6900

012

061

1249

684

105

010

011

8769

3477

1222

507

027

7311

7616

333

5169

7100

4545

043

3268

40

3268

08

7280

1473

653

026

5171

0032

240

2319

236

019

240

Sect

ion

2R

oute

52

Cen

tral

90

2340

915

035

780

3537

035

6941

069

40M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

1027

253

00

013

30

00

00

2738

60

2739

0D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

198

1848

036

960

1112

507

00

1666

70

00

00

029

173

029

170

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1343

2687

`12

023

4091

50

3578

035

370

3569

400

6940

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

1171

914

3713

6664

012

480

5227

022

398

00

00

010

6745

010

6740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

103

1716

734

333

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r40

2651

5301

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k50

9940

1988

0To

tal

50,2

9910

0,59

910

0L T

urbi

ne la

yout

Sect

ion

3R

oute

52

East

of W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dA

32M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

B38

Tota

l tru

ck v

olum

e on

eac

h se

ctio

nD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9184

4816

896

C19

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

161

412

28D

54R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nC

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r5

329

657

E25

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4778

4815

695

F29

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r18

1212

2423

G45

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k23

4544

9088

Tota

l24

2To

tal

22,9

9445

,988

Roa

d Se

ctio

ns U

sed

(1 =

on

rout

e, 0

= n

ot)

Sect

ion

4W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r10

710

032

2006

4A

61

11

1St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

272

914

58B

41

11

11

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

639

078

0C

31

1W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k56

9319

1863

8D

21

1D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2214

3928

78E

51

11

1C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

2753

9610

792

F7

11

11

1To

tal

27,3

0554

,611

G1

11

1EB

oP1

11

Sect

ion

5W

aita

whi

ti R

d%

Roa

d U

sage

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

7771

8714

373

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck1

477

953

A 6

36%

49%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%13

%C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

B4

62%

49%

0%10

0%10

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

16%

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0C

30%

0%0%

0%0%

20%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

8%D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

1066

313

25D

20%

0%0%

0%0%

19%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

22%

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

E5

0%0%

0%0%

0%48

%41

%0%

0%10

0%0%

0%10

%To

tal

8,32

616

,652

F7

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

%59

%10

0%0%

0%10

0%0%

12%

G1

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%0%

100%

19%

EBoP

2%2%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%Se

ctio

n 6

Cas

tle H

ill R

d10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r84

7840

1568

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

832

5065

00To

tal n

o. o

f trip

s (F

igur

e 25

)C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r21

1372

2744

Clu

ster

Stag

e 1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

207

3450

069

000

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wks

)C

onst

ruct

dur

atio

n (d

ays)

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wor

king

day

s)D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9160

3012

061

A 6

29,8

0754

,590

54,5

900

00

00

00

00

14,1

1452

.29

394

338

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k31

6248

1249

6B

452

,040

54,6

100

54,6

1026

,860

00

00

00

016

,761

65.2

948

541

6To

tal

59,2

4011

8,48

1C

30

00

00

24,9

000

00

00

08,

380

59.5

744

538

1D

20

00

00

23,5

430

00

00

023

,818

98.2

971

661

4E

50

00

00

58,3

7013

,447

00

27,3

900

011

,027

47.1

435

830

7Se

ctio

n 7

Alfre

dton

Tin

ui R

dF

70

00

00

11,9

6019

,233

19,2

400

029

,170

012

,791

48.4

336

731

5M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

G1

00

00

00

00

6,94

00

06,

940

19,8

4810

4.14

757

649

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

EBoP

1,79

01,

790

00

03,

477

00

00

00

010

8.14

785

673

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1387

2773

Tota

l Tru

ck M

vmts

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

958

811

76C

heck

sum

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4981

6716

333

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r39

2584

5169

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k18

3550

7100

Aver

age

Dai

ly T

rips

(Fig

ure

25)

Tota

l16

,276

32,5

51C

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nM

axim

um p

er C

lust

erA

688

162

162

00

00

00

00

042

162

Sect

ion

8Ti

nui R

dB

412

513

10

131

650

00

00

00

4013

1M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

C3

00

00

065

00

00

00

2265

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r39

3640

7280

D2

00

00

038

00

00

00

3939

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck2

737

1473

E5

00

00

019

044

00

890

036

190

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

532

765

3F

70

00

00

3861

610

093

041

93W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

G1

00

00

00

00

110

011

3131

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r20

1325

2651

EBoP

33

00

05

00

00

00

0C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

1835

5071

00To

tal

9,57

919

,157

Sect

ion

9D

aggs

Rd

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

00

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

311

7023

40C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r7

457

915

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2717

8935

78C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

3,41

76,

833

Sect

ion

10M

airin

gi R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r14

613

627

2725

3St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

166

133

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l13

,693

27,3

86

Sect

ion

11Ta

naw

a R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r67

6253

1250

7St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

5083

3316

667

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l14

,587

29,1

73

Sect

ion

12R

oute

52

Sout

hM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1170

2340

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

745

791

5W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k54

9000

1800

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2717

8935

78C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

12,4

1724

,833

Sect

ion

13Al

fredt

on R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r22

220

720

4144

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

1462

4012

480

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

4026

1352

27W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r16

911

199

2239

8C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

40,7

7281

,545

Clu

ster

Num

ber o

f Tu

rbin

es

Traf

ficG

ener

atio

n_v1

8sen

sitiv

ity12

0711

_a.x

lsm

Pag

e 1

Trip

Dis

trib

utio

n An

alys

is -

Low

Inte

nsity

1 T

eam

Mat

eria

ls in

put b

oxes

10t T

ruck

to 3

0t T

ruck

and

Tra

iler

Sect

ion

1 R

oute

52

Wes

t20

%80

%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

TRU

CK

MO

VEM

ENTS

(2-w

ay)

(80:

20)

(30t

:10t

) tru

ck ra

tio fo

r gra

vel,

cem

ent &

san

dD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

275

2566

751

333

Sect

ion

Gra

vel

Stee

lC

emen

tW

ater

Sand

Con

cret

e C

able

Dru

ms

Tran

s Li

ne D

rum

sAl

fred

ton

Qua

rry

OH

line

s Po

les

Tota

lEB

oP

TOTA

LSt

eel

7.8

18t

truck

4.2

1820

3640

151

333

3640

1437

066

270

3258

1866

755

8184

917

9083

640

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

1171

914

372

3696

026

8714

3734

333

5301

1988

017

2685

3325

1092

0117

9011

0990

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

03

1689

612

2865

715

695

2423

9088

1726

8533

2554

590

054

590

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r50

3313

6627

420

064

1458

780

1863

828

7810

792

00

00

5461

10

5461

0C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

05

1437

395

30

013

250

1631

1013

330

2686

30

2686

0To

tal

31,5

1963

,037

615

680

6500

2744

6900

012

061

1249

684

105

010

011

8769

3477

1222

507

027

7311

7616

333

5169

7100

4545

043

3268

40

3268

08

7280

1473

653

026

5171

0032

240

2319

236

019

240

Sect

ion

2R

oute

52

Cen

tral

90

2340

915

035

780

3537

035

6941

069

40M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

1027

253

00

013

30

00

00

2738

60

2739

0D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

198

1848

036

960

1112

507

00

1666

70

00

00

029

173

029

170

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1343

2687

`12

023

4091

50

3578

035

370

3569

400

6940

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

1171

914

3713

6664

012

480

5227

022

398

00

00

010

6745

010

6740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

103

1716

734

333

1415

680

953

392

015

9062

3220

160

1524

898

024

900

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r40

2651

5301

1595

2027

7311

7653

3346

390

1945

043

2354

734

7727

020

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k50

9940

1988

0To

tal

50,2

9910

0,59

910

0L T

urbi

ne la

yout

Sect

ion

3R

oute

52

East

of W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dA

32M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

B38

Tota

l tru

ck v

olum

e on

eac

h se

ctio

nD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9184

4816

896

C19

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

161

412

28D

54R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nC

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r5

329

657

E25

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4778

4815

695

F29

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r18

1212

2423

G45

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k23

4544

9088

Tota

l24

2To

tal

22,9

9445

,988

Roa

d Se

ctio

ns U

sed

(1 =

on

rout

e, 0

= n

ot)

Sect

ion

4W

aiho

ki V

alle

y R

dC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r10

710

032

2006

4A

61

11

1St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

272

914

58B

41

11

11

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

639

078

0C

31

1W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k56

9319

1863

8D

21

1D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2214

3928

78E

51

11

1C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

2753

9610

792

F7

11

11

1To

tal

27,3

0554

,611

G1

11

1EB

oP1

11

Sect

ion

5W

aita

whi

ti R

d%

Roa

d U

sage

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayC

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

7771

8714

373

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck1

477

953

A 6

36%

49%

100%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%13

%C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

B4

62%

49%

0%10

0%10

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

16%

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0C

30%

0%0%

0%0%

20%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

8%D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

1066

313

25D

20%

0%0%

0%0%

19%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

22%

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

E5

0%0%

0%0%

0%48

%41

%0%

0%10

0%0%

0%10

%To

tal

8,32

616

,652

F7

0%0%

0%0%

0%10

%59

%10

0%0%

0%10

0%0%

12%

G1

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

100%

0%0%

100%

19%

EBoP

2%2%

0%0%

0%3%

0%0%

0%0%

0%0%

0%Se

ctio

n 6

Cas

tle H

ill R

d10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%10

0%M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r84

7840

1568

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

832

5065

00C

lust

erSt

age

Tota

l no.

of t

rips

(Fig

ure

25)

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

2113

7227

441

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

207

3450

069

000

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2W

aiho

ki V

alle

y W

aita

whi

tiC

astle

Hill

Alfr

edto

n Ti

nui

Tinu

iD

aggs

Mar

ingi

Tana

wa

Rou

te 5

2(St

h)Al

fred

ton

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wks

)C

onst

ruct

dur

atio

n (d

ays)

Con

stru

ct d

urat

ion

(wor

king

day

s)D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

9160

3012

061

A 6

29,8

0754

,590

54,5

900

00

00

00

00

14,1

1412

5.14

904

775

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k31

6248

1249

6B

452

,040

54,6

100

54,6

1026

,860

00

00

00

016

,761

117.

5785

172

9To

tal

59,2

4011

8,48

1C

30

00

00

24,9

000

00

00

08,

380

91.5

766

957

3D

20

00

00

23,5

430

00

00

023

,818

125.

5790

777

7E

50

00

00

58,3

7013

,447

00

27,3

900

011

,027

109.

8679

768

3Se

ctio

n 7

Alfre

dton

Tin

ui R

dF

70

00

00

11,9

6019

,233

19,2

400

029

,170

012

,791

126.

1491

178

1M

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

G1

00

00

00

00

6,94

00

06,

940

19,8

4810

4.14

757

649

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

EBoP

1,79

01,

790

00

03,

477

00

00

00

010

8.14

785

673

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1387

2773

Tota

l Tru

ck M

vmts

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

958

811

76C

heck

sum

83,6

4011

0,99

054

,590

54,6

1026

,860

122,

250

32,6

8019

,240

6,94

027

,390

29,1

706,

940

106,

740

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

4981

6716

333

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r39

2584

5169

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k18

3550

7100

Aver

age

Dai

ly T

rips

(Fig

ure

25)

Tota

l16

,276

32,5

51C

lust

erSt

age

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13R

oute

52

Rou

te 5

2R

oute

52

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Wai

taw

hiti

Cas

tle H

illAl

fred

ton

Tinu

iTi

nui

Dag

gsM

arin

giTa

naw

aR

oute

52(

Sth)

Alfr

edto

nM

axim

um p

er C

lust

erA

638

7070

00

00

00

00

018

70Se

ctio

n 8

Tinu

i Rd

B4

7175

075

370

00

00

00

2375

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayC

30

00

00

430

00

00

015

43D

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

3936

4072

80D

20

00

00

300

00

00

031

31St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

273

714

73E

50

00

00

8520

00

400

016

85C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r5

327

653

F7

00

00

015

2525

00

370

1637

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0G

10

00

00

00

011

00

1131

31D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2013

2526

51EB

oP3

30

00

50

00

00

00

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k18

3550

7100

Tota

l9,

579

19,1

57

Sect

ion

9D

aggs

Rd

Mat

eria

lW

eigh

t/m3

(t)Pa

yloa

d/m

vmt

Uni

tTr

ansp

ort C

ombo

Volu

me

(x10

00m

3)O

ne-w

ayTw

o-w

ayD

ry G

rave

l2

30t

truck

+tra

iler

00

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

311

7023

40C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r7

457

915

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

2717

8935

78C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

3,41

76,

833

Sect

ion

10M

airin

gi R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r14

613

627

2725

3St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

00

0D

ry,lo

ose

sand

1.42

30t

truck

+tra

iler

166

133

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l13

,693

27,3

86

Sect

ion

11Ta

naw

a R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r67

6253

1250

7St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

00

0C

emen

t1.

424

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Wat

er1

6t

wat

er tr

uck

5083

3316

667

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l14

,587

29,1

73

Sect

ion

12R

oute

52

Sout

hM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r0

00

Stee

l7.

818

ttru

ck3

1170

2340

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

745

791

5W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r27

1789

3578

Con

cret

e5

m3

conc

rete

truc

k0

00

Tota

l3,

417

6,83

3

Sect

ion

13Al

fredt

on R

dM

ater

ial

Wei

ght/m

3 (t)

Payl

oad/

mvm

tU

nit

Tran

spor

t Com

boVo

lum

e (x

1000

m3)

One

-way

Two-

way

Dry

Gra

vel

230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r35

733

320

6664

0St

eel

7.8

18t

truck

1462

4012

480

Cem

ent

1.4

24t

truck

+tra

iler

4026

1352

27W

ater

16

tw

ater

truc

k0

00

Dry

,loos

e sa

nd1.

4230

ttru

ck+t

raile

r16

911

199

2239

8C

oncr

ete

5m

3co

ncre

te tr

uck

00

0To

tal

53,3

7210

6,74

5

Clu

ster

Num

ber o

f Tu

rbin

es

Traf

ficG

ener

atio

n_v1

8sen

sitiv

ity12

0711

_a.x

lsm

Page

1

012345

Oct-13Dec-13

Feb-14Apr-14Jun-14Aug-14Oct-14Dec-14






Feb-20Apr-20Jun-20

No. of Clusters Active

Con

stru

ctio

n D

urat

ions

(dat

es in

dica

tive

only

)

Con

stru

ctio

n Pr

ogra

mm

e O

ptio

ns

Num

ber o

f Act

ive

Turb

ine

Clu

ster

s

Low

Inte

nsity

1 T

eam

Med

ium

Inte

nsity

1 T

eam

Hig

h In

tens

ity 2

Tea

ms

Assessment of potential over-dimension loads per cluster per day

Cluster Maximum Number of Turbines (From 80L, 90L, 100L Layouts)

No. blades No.Nacelles No. Tower Sections

No Hub and nose cones

Total movements

Construction working days

per Cluster

Average over-dimension

vehicle movements

per day

Peak over-dimension

vehicle movements per

dayA 33 99 33 132 33 594 326 2 4B 46 138 46 184 46 828 312 3 5C 24 72 24 96 24 432 309 1 3D 65 195 65 260 65 1170 274 4 9E 29 87 29 116 29 522 307 2 3F 37 111 37 148 37 666 315 2 4G 53 159 53 212 53 954 315 3 6

Total 2871234567

89

10

Assessment of Total Daily and Peak Hour Flows by ClusterHigh Intensity 2 Team

CLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (vpd two way)

PEAK TURBINE DELIVERY TRAFFIC

(vpd two way)

CONTRACTOR LIGHT VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)

TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE

DAILY VEHICLE MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)

TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS(vph two way)

TOTAL AVERAGE MID DAY HOURLY

VEHICLE MOVEMENTS(v

ph two way) A 92 4 185 280 107 10B 175 5 185 365 120 18C 80 3 185 268 105 8D 86 9 185 279 107 9E 78 3 185 266 105 8F 62 4 185 251 102 7G 22 6 185 213 97 3

Medium Intensity 1 TeamCLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK TURBINE CONTRACTOR TOTAL TOTAL MAXIMUM TOTAL

A 88 4 185 277 106 9B 131 5 185 322 113 14C 65 3 185 253 103 7D 38 9 185 232 100 5E 78 3 185 266 105 8F 93 4 185 282 107 10G 11 6 185 202 95 2

Low Intensity 1 TeamCLUSTER MAXIMUM AVERAGE

DAILY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC (vpd two way)

PEAK TURBINE DELIVERY TRAFFIC

(vpd two way)

CONTRACTOR LIGHT VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)

TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE

DAILY VEHICLE MOVEMENTS (vpd two way)

TOTAL MAXIMUM AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS(vph two way)

TOTAL AVERAGE MID DAY HOURLY

VEHICLE MOVEMENTS(v

ph two way) A 38 4 185 227 99 4B 75 5 185 265 105 8C 43 3 185 231 99 5D 30 9 185 224 98 4E 40 3 185 228 99 4F 37 4 185 227 99 4G 11 6 185 202 95 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

Movements equals twice the summed vehicle load based demandsConstruction period working days based on minimum construction period for each of the 3 construction programme optionsConstruction working days based on 6 working days per construction period week

Total maximum average daily vehicle movements based on sum of maximum average daily construction traffic, peak turbine delivery and contractor light vehicle movements

Key Assumptions:

Key Assumptions: Maximum average daily construction traffic based on maximum demand from materials distribution analysis for each construction programme on any road section

Expected turbine delivery based on peak demand assessment in the first table above (twice average demand)Contractor light vehicle movements based on contractor personnel at peak construction for high intensity programme and an average two person per vehicle occupancy

Average over-dimension vehicle movements based on total movements distributed across construction working daysPeak over-dimension vehicle movements based on twice the average demand

Maximum number of turbines for any layout produces the greatest total number of turbine component trips3 blades per turbine1 nacelle per turbineUp to 4 sections per tower1 trip per nose and hub cone for each turbine

Total maximum average peak hour vehicle movements based on half of the daily contractor light vehicle movements plus 15% of the sum of (maximum average daily construction traffic plus peak expected turbine delivery traffic)Total average mid day hourly vehicle movement based on 10% of the sum of (maximum average daily construction traffic plus peak expected turbine delivery traffic)

Genesis Power Limited, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Transportation Assessment Report


Appendix G: Assessment of Activity Generated Need for General Road Upgrading

Asse

ssm

ent o

f Pot

entia

l Dem

and

for R

oad

Wid

enin

g G

ener

ated

by

the

Win

d Fa

rm

EXPE

CTE

D

MA

XIM

UM

A

DD

ITIO

NA

L H

EAVY

C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N T

RA

FFIC

TOTA

L EX

PEC

TED

M

AXI

MU

M

AD

DIT

ION

AL

INC

LUD

ING

C

ON

TRA

CT

OR

LIG

HT

VEH

ICLE

M

OVE

MEN

TS

Low

est

Dai

lyH

ighe

st

Dai

lyLo

wes

t D

aily

Hig

hest

D

aily

Dai

ly

Estim

ates

Dai

ly

Estim

ates

Low

est

Dai

lyH

ighe

st

Dai

lyM

inim

umTy

pica

l M

axim

umM

ean

Typi

cal

Min

imum

Typi

cal

Max

imum

Mea

n Ty

pica

lM

inim

umTy

pica

l M

axim

umM

ean

Typi

cal

Min

imum

Typi

cal

Max

imum

Mea

n Ty

pica

lM

inim

umTy

pica

l M

axim

umM

ean

Typi

cal

Min

imum

Typi

cal

Max

imum

Typi

cal

Mea

n Ty

pica

l(v

pd)

(vpd

)(v

pd)

(vpd

)(v

pd)

(vpd

)(v

pd)

(vpd

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)(m

)

Rou

te 5

2Se

aled

4.2

6.6

5.7-

5.8

5.8

6430

020

1069

324

303

489

558

813

6-2

.8-0

.4-1

.2-1

.80.

6-0

.27

-3.8

-1.4

-2.2

-2.8

-0.4

-1.2

11

1

Cas

tle H

ill R

oad

Seal

ed /

Uns

eale

d3.

36

4.0

-5.0

4.5

4015

020

0746

171

265

451

497

622

6-2

.70

-1.5

-2.7

0-1

.56

-3.7

-1-2

.5-2

.70

-1.5

00

0

Dag

gs R

oad

Seal

ed /

Uns

eale

d4

4.4

4.0-

4.4

4.2

3040

2005

3547

1920

524

025

26

-2-1

.6-1

.8-2

-1.6

-1.8

6-2

-1.6

-1.8

-2-1

.6-1

.80

00

Alfre

dton

Roa

dSe

aled

3.9

7.4

6.1

6.1

4049

020

0944

539

196

382

426

921

6-3

.10.

4-0

.9-2

.11.

40.

17

-4.1

-0.6

-1.9

-3.1

0.4

-0.9

11

1

Wai

hoki

Val

ley

Roa

dSe

aled

/ U

nsea

led

3.2

5.4

3.2

3.2

13

2001

14

155

341

342

345

6-2

.8-0

.6-2

.8-2

.8-0

.6-2

.86

-2.8

-0.6

-2.8

-2.8

-0.6

-2.8

00

0

Kaita

wa

Roa

dSe

aled

5.1

6.6

5.7

5.7

320

550

2008

358

616

2521

156

982

76

-1.9

-0.4

-1.3

-0.9

0.6

-0.3

7-2

.9-1

.4-2

.3-1

.9-0

.4-1

.31

11

Man

gaon

e Va

lley

Roa

dSe

aled

57.

85.

5-6.

35.

950

200

2010

5421

625

211

265

427

6-1

1.8

-0.1

-11.

8-0

.16

-20.

8-1

.1-1

1.8

-0.1

00

0

Wai

riri R

oad

Seal

ed /

Uns

eale

d4

4.5

44

1550

2005

1859

2521

122

927

06

-2-1

.5-2

-2-1

.5-2

6-2

-1.5

-2-2

-1.5

-20

00

Mar

ingi

Roa

dU

nsea

led

3.6

4.3

3.6-

4.0

3.8

3030

2005

3535

8026

630

130

16

-2.4

-1.7

-2.2

-2.4

-1.7

-2.2

6-2

.4-1

.7-2

.2-2

.4-1

.7-2

.20

00

Wha

ngae

hu

Valle

y R

oad

Seal

ed5.

67.

15.

6-6.

05.

510

020

020

0412

024

019

205

325

445

6-0

.41.

1-0

.5-0

.41.

1-0

.56

-1.4

0.1

-1.5

-0.4

1.1

-0.5

00

0

Man

awa

Roa

dSe

aled

/ U

nsea

led

4.7

6.3

4.7-

5.3

560

120

2006

7013

925

211

281

350

6-1

.30.

3-1

-1.3

0.3

-16

-2.3

-0.7

-2-1

.30.

3-1

00

0

Mas

terto

n-C

astle

poin

t Roa

dSe

aled

4

7.3

6.5

6.5

130

2000

2007

148

2280

2521

135

924

918

-5-1

.7-2

.5-4

-0.7

-1.5

8-5

-1.7

-2.5

-4-0

.7-1

.50

00

Alfre

dton

-Tin

ui

Roa

dU

nsea

led

44.

84

420

2020

0524

2480

266

290

290

6-2

-1.2

-2-2

-1.2

-26

-2-1

.2-2

-2-1

.2-2

00

0

Te O

re O

re R

oad

Seal

ed7

1414

1412

075

0020

0613

987

0025

211

350

8911

8-2

55

-16

68

-25

5-1

66

00

0

Te O

re O

re

Bide

ford

Roa

dSe

aled

5.3

7.1

5.3-

6.3

5.8

3000

7600

2006

3480

8816

2521

136

9190

278

-3.7

-1.9

-3.2

-2.7

-0.9

-2.2

8-3

.7-1

.9-3

.2-2

.7-0

.9-2

.20

00

Belo

w S

tand

ard

Abov

e St

anda

rd

RO

AD

NA

ME

CA

RR

IAG

EW

AY

Cur

rent

Sea

l Wid

th V

aria

tion

from

NZS

4404

:201

0, In

clud

ing

1.0m

Sea

l Wid

th D

ispe

nsat

ion

Belo

w S

tand

ard

Addi

tiona

l roa

d w

idth

de

man

d ge

nera

ted

by

the

activ

ity

Theo

retic

al a

dditi

onal

road

w

idth

dem

and

gene

rate

d by

th

e ac

tivity

if it

was

a

perm

anen

t act

ivity

Abov

e St

anda

rd

NZS

4404

:200

4 D

esira

ble

Long

Te

rm S

eal W

idth

(R

ural

Roa

ds),

Incl

udin

g D

istr

ict

Plan

1.0

m S

eal

Wid

th

Dis

pens

atio

n - f

or

2014

Vol

umes

-

Dur

ing

Con

stru

ctio

n

Cur

rent

Sea

l Wid

th V

aria

tion

from

NZS

4404

:201

0N

ZS44

04:2

004

Des

irabl

e Lo

ng T

erm

Se

al W

idth

(R

ural

Roa

ds),

Incl

udin

g D

istr

ict P

lan

1.0m

Sea

l W

idth

D

ispe

nsat

ion

- fo

r 201

4 Vo

lum

es

Cur

rent

Sea

l Wid

th V

aria

tion

from

NZS

4404

:201

0C

urre

nt S

eal W

idth

Var

iatio

n fr

om N

ZS44

04:2

010,

Incl

udin

g 1.

0m S

eal W

idth

Dis

pens

atio

n

Dur

ing

Con

stru

ctio

nEx

istin

g C

ondi

tion

CA

RR

IAG

EWA

Y W

IDTH

S (m

)

2014

TR

AFF

IC

VOLU

MES

BA

SED

O

N 2

%PA

GR

OW

THC

UR

REN

T TR

AFF

IC

VOLU

ME

FOR

ECA

ST 2

014

TOTA

L VO

LUM

ES

DU

RIN

G

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

LATE

ST

CO

UN

T YE

AR

Roa

d W

iden

ing

Asse

ssm

ent_

v4.x

lsPa

ge 1



Appendix H: Bridge & Culvert Details, Tararua and Masterton Districts



Tararua District Bridge and Culvert Details

ROAD RP BRIDGE/CULVERT LENGTH WIDTH SPANS BEAMS

Hamua-Rongomai Road

670 E-63 57.9 4.5 2 s

1342 E-65 13.7 7.3 1 c

5205 E-66 8.2 3.7 1 c

Kaitawa Road 1124 P-24 10.5 6.7 1 c

1420 PC-34 - Culvert full width - -

Mangaone Valley Road

2587 P-25 45.1 6.7 3 c

10197 P-26 9.4 6 1 c

12835 E-09 13.2 4.4 1 c

14513 E-08 27.4 7.3 3 c

17078 E-10 9.1 7.3 1 c

18342 E-07 6.4 3.7 1 c



20360 EC-11 - Culvert full width - -


Alfredton Road

6606 E-16 22.6 7.3 3 c

15953 E-14 5.8 5.5 1 c

16940 E-15 31.4 3.7 3 c




Rimu Road 25 A-52 13 6.4 1 c

2893 A-53 12 6.8 1 c

Waihoki Valley Road

152 E-101 13.7 4.5 1 s


Waitawhiti Road 4823 E-95 11.6 6.5 1 c

5307 E-96 9.1 4.4 1 c

Castle Hill Road

2575 E-75 27.4 7.4 2 c

6291 E-76 16.8 4.5 1 s

7522 E-77 23.1 4.5 1 s

8862 E-79 8.2 4.5 1 s

9551 E-80 9.1 4.5 1 s

9810 E-81 9.1 4.5 1 s



ROAD RP BRIDGE/CULVERT LENGTH WIDTH SPANS BEAMS


Daggs Road - none - - - -

Route 52 north of Alfredton (052-0121)

5395 E-17 11.6 4.2 1 c

14965 E-18 36.9 8.4 4 c





Route 52 north of Alfredton (052-0144)

0 E-19 36.9 4.7 3 c

3565 E-20 49.2 7.05 4 c

5247 E-21 50 7.1 2 c

7898 E-22 12.6 7.1 1 c

8794 E-23 31.1 8.38 3 c

Route 52 (052-0157) to Daggs Road

0 E-24 9.2 7.09 1 c


Alfredton-Tinui Road 7940

* The ‘C’ suffix in the ‘Bridge/Culvert’ column denotes “large culvert”. In the “Beams” column, “s” and “c” denote “steel” and “concrete” respectively. Structural analysis of these structures is covered by Aurecon.



Masterton District Bridge and Culvert Details

ROAD NAME DISPLACEMENT ADT BRIDGE ID LENGTH KERB TO KERB NAME SPANS LANES

Alfredton Tinui Road 7940 15 125 24.7 3.6 B6/1 WINGATE 1 1

Daggs Road 1925 10 151 14.1 3.6 B386/1 DAGGS 1 1

Maringi Road 1240 24 76 9.6 3.75 B140/1 MARINGI #1 1 1

Maringi Road 3430 24 77 24.45 2.6 B140/2 MARINGI #2 2 1

Maringi Road 8440 <10 78 15.2 3.2 B140/3 MARINGI 3 1



Appendix I: Construct ion Traffic Management Framework



Genesis Energy

Castle Hill Wind Farm

Construction Traffic Management Framework

PO Box1261, Level 6, 11 Garden Pl Hamilton 3240 P: +64 78395500 www.tdg.co.nz New Zealand transportation effects assessment.docx

July 2011

transportation effects assessment.docx

Genesis Energy

Castle Hill Wind Farm

Construction Traffic Management Framework Quality Assurance Statement

Prepared by:

Mark Apeldoorn

Director

Reviewed by:

Anna Wilkins

Principal Transportation Engineer

Approved for Issue by:

Mark Apeldoorn

Director

Status: Final

Date: July 2011

Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework


Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1

3. CTMP Development Process ................................................................................................... 2

4. CTMP Content .......................................................................................................................... 3

4.1 Consent Conditions .................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Construction Programme ............................................................................................ 3

4.3 Traffic Flows ................................................................................................................ 3

4.4 Road Safety Assessment ........................................................................................... 3

4.5 Wind Farm Access Points ........................................................................................... 3

4.6 Travel Routes .............................................................................................................. 3

4.7 Road Closures, Events and Cyclic Activities .............................................................. 4

4.8 Travel Plan .................................................................................................................. 4

4.9 Driver Protocols .......................................................................................................... 4

4.10 Contractor Parking ...................................................................................................... 4

4.11 Oversize Loads ........................................................................................................... 4

4.12 Passenger Transport .................................................................................................. 5

4.13 Road Improvements ................................................................................................... 5

4.14 Pavement Maintenance .............................................................................................. 6

4.15 Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 6

4.16 Incident Reporting ....................................................................................................... 6

4.17 Emergency Services ................................................................................................... 6

4.18 Contingency Planning ................................................................................................. 6

4.19 Temporary Traffic Management Planning .................................................................. 6 4.19.1 Temporary Speed Restrictions .............................................................................................. 12 4.19.2 COPTTM Variations .............................................................................................................. 13 4.19.3 Engineering Exception Decisions .......................................................................................... 13

4.20 Communication Protocols ......................................................................................... 13

5. Specific Standards .................................................................................................................. 13

5.1 Traffic Flows .............................................................................................................. 13

5.2 Wind Farm Access Points ......................................................................................... 13

5.3 Travel Routes ............................................................................................................ 14

5.4 Driver Protocols ........................................................................................................ 14

5.5 Oversize Transporters .............................................................................................. 14

5.6 Road Improvements ................................................................................................. 15

5.7 Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 16

Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework


5.8 Incident Reporting ..................................................................................................... 16

5.9 Communications ....................................................................................................... 17

6. Presentation ............................................................................................................................ 18

Genesis Energy, Castle Hill Wind Farm: Construction Traffic Management Framework transportation effects assessment.docx

1

1. Introduction

This document is the Construction Traffic Management Framework for the Castle Hill Wind Farm. It has been prepared to set out the purpose, objectives and specific standards to be applied when preparing the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) at the detailed design stage.

Some aspects of the construction methodology are to be fixed as specific standards in this Framework which must be included in the CTMP under the conditions of the resource consent for the CHWF. Other aspects, such as timing and staging (which influence traffic volumes), are to be developed at the detailed design stage when contractors are involved. It is not practical to prepare these details at this stage, and the approach of preparing the full CTMP at the detailed design stage will enable contractors to bring innovation where appropriate, enabling a substantially better outcome for other road users, the efficiency of construction, or both.

The CTMP is to be prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer with specialist skills in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning, appointed by the consent holder. Preparation of the CTMP will involve input from the principal civil engineering contractor, the turbine transport contractor, Tararua and Masterton District Councils, residents on the transport route who wish to be involved, emergency services and local transport operators (such as the school bus operator and livestock transporters). It will be required to meet the purpose, objectives, and specific standards set out in this Framework. The Plan is to be submitted to the Councils to be assessed and certified as meeting the requirements of the Framework.

2. Purpose and Object ives

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of the CTMP is to set out in detail the manner in which construction traffic will be managed to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the road network, to minimise adverse effects on the existing community arising from construction traffic, and to provide the community with information about Genesis Energy’s traffic arrangements.

2.2 Objectives

The objectives of the CTMP are to:

(i) ensure the specific requirements of Acts, Regulations, Bylaws and consent conditions in relation to construction traffic, are adhered to;

(ii) encourage a culture of road safety awareness and commitment;

(iii) ensure best practice in transport safety;

(iv) ensure emergency services are not obstructed;

(v) minimise disruption to the community, farming operations and rural services;

(vi) minimise traffic generation; and

(vii) encourage the participation of the community in maximising safety and minimising disruption.


2

These objectives will be achieved by the methods set out in the CTMP.

3. CTMP Development Process

Preparation of the CTMP will be facilitated by a Chartered Professional Engineer, specialising in Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning, appointed by the consent holder. Its preparation is to begin approximately four months before construction.

In preparing a first draft CTMP, the Chartered Professional Engineer shall:

(i) review this Construction Traffic Management Framework;

(ii) review the CHWF Transportation Assessment and relevant evidence;

(iii) review the approved consent conditions;

(iv) liaise with the consent holder, the lead civil engineer, the principal civils contractor, the turbine transport contractor, Tararua and Masterton District Councils, residents on the transport route who wish to be involved, NZ Police, NZ Fire Service, St Johns Ambulance, the school bus operator, rural transport operators (identified by residents), and vets.

Liaison may involve such meetings and conversations as are appropriate to ensure effective consultation with the parties listed above, and others considered appropriate by the Engineer.

The first draft will be circulated to the above parties for comments and suggestions. A period of at least four weeks will be allowed for comments and suggestions. These will be evaluated by the Chartered Professional Engineer and incorporated into the completed CTMP, as the Engineer determines appropriate.

The completed CTMP will be submitted to the Tararua and Masterton District Councils at least four weeks before construction of the CHWF begins along with a report outlining the comments and suggestions made on the first draft, and the extent to which they have been included. The Tararua and Masterton District Councils will assess the completed CTMP with a view to certifying it as meeting the purpose, objectives, and specific standards set out in this Framework.

Any changes required to achieve that certification will be discussed between the Councils and the Engineer and made, enabling the final CTMP to be distributed to:

(i) the consulted parties;

(ii) rural transport operators and rural service providers who regularly use the primary access roads; and

(iii) made available to residents and others who have an interest via electronic media.

Updates will likely be required from time to time as a result of project changes or issues arising, which may be identified by the consent holder, its contractors, Tararua or Masterton District Councils, or to address matters relating to residents or other road users. Suggested changes to the CTMP or issues arising will be referred to the Chartered Professional Engineer who will consider the matter and make a recommendation to the Tararua and Masterton District Councils. If the Councils certify the recommended changes to the CTMP, revised copies will be made available via digital media for the above referenced parties.


3

4. CTMP Content

The CTMP is to include, as a minimum, the following content.

4.1 Consent Conditions

The CTMP shall record the full set of consent conditions relating to traffic and transportation conditions in this section. The following specific actions and responses shall be developed having regard for the consent condition requirements and the bases on which the Transportation Effects Assessment has been made.

4.2 Construction Programme

The CTMP is to present the confirmed construction programme, setting out the start and end dates for the key traffic generating activities. From this, all parties will be able to understand the type of activities that are occurring and therefore the types of vehicles to expect on the road network.

4.3 Traffic Flows

Based on the programme and construction methodology, the CTMP will set out the expected profile of average daily truck and light vehicle movements from month to month during construction. It will also address the expected spread of traffic throughout the day, considering the arrangements for transporting materials and people to the Site, including the geographic spread of sources and accommodation.

4.4 Road Safety Assessment

An assessment of the road safety record as contained on the Land Transport New Zealand Crash Analysis Database for the most recent five year period shall be provided, and commentary given on any particular road safety matters that warrant consideration. Where relevant, this may be taken from the Transportation Assessment Report and updated.

A visual assessment shall also be made of the Local Roading environment to determine the nature of road safety. Any potential notable risk areas shall be identified and recorded in this report along with the mitigation planning to be implemented.

4.5 Wind Farm Access Points

The CTMP will provide details of the individual points where the Site will be accessed from the public road network including how security will be managed.

4.6 Travel Routes

The CTMP will map the travel route(s) to be used by construction vehicles and for oversize loads travelling from the receiving Port.


4

4.7 Road Closures, Events and Cyclic Activities

The CTMP shall be prepared in consultation with event organisers and Councils. It shall have regard for but not be limited to considering the following:

(i) car rally and/or cycling events;

(ii) other activities and works within the road environment that may occur from time to time;

(iii) the movement of stock along or across the roadways;

(iv) ram sales and mustering which typically occurs in November;

(v) lamb sales which typically occur around February; and

(vi) fertilising activities in autumn and spring. Of note in this regard is the Daggs Road access to the airstrip, which appears to service up to about seven farms.

4.8 Travel Plan

A Travel Plan shall be developed to minimise contractor generated traffic and construction traffic movements to and from the Site. This shall consider for example alternative travel modes, off-set travel times, ride sharing and opportunities for back loading of construction vehicles.

4.9 Driver Protocols

In addition to the driving standards imposed by law, all drivers involved in the project will be subject to additional protocols when travelling along the district roads. The objective of these protocols will be to ensure the safe operation of roads and to minimise existing user delay during construction.

The CTMP will set out these protocols along with the monitoring and disciplinary procedures to be followed in the event of any breaches.

4.10 Contractor Parking

Contractor parking is to be planned to be wholly accommodated On-Site and clear of the public roads. The location, quantity and provision of parking is to be specified in the CTMP to demonstrate the suitable provision and location of the activity.

4.11 Oversize Loads

The CTMP will address the movement of Over-weight and Over-dimension loads. While this work will be undertaken by specialist contractors operating under permits specific to the project, the details will be repeated in the CTMP to inform interested parties in understanding what to expect.

This part of the CTMP is to include:


5

(i) the over-size transport route(s);

(ii) times and locations when movement is prohibited, and an indication of the times of day when deliveries are anticipated;

(iii) procedures for working around stock movements;

(iv) operating restrictions for bridge crossings;

(v) piloting procedures;

(vi) contingency plans for breakdowns, bridge or pavement failures, severe weather conditions, accidents, or roadworks;

(vii) provisions for co-ordination with other parties, including emergency services; and

(viii) provisions for communication with school bus drivers.

Copies of the permits themselves are to be appended to the CTMP.

4.12 Passenger Transport

Specific management plans shall be prepared to show the planning provisions for reliable travel time, movement and operation of passenger transport, including stopping areas.

This is to include scheduled passenger services, scheduled community or health services (the Local or Regional Councils may be able to advise contacts or provisions in this regard) and any school services that have the potential to be affected.

4.13 Road Improvements

An appropriately detailed schedule describing the road improvement works and the temporary traffic management provisions to be put in place will be separately submitted to Council for approval under the Local Government Act. This schedule will include road improvements to facilitate movement of oversize loads, pavement upgrades, pavement maintenance obligations, and the provision of traffic management facilities at regularly used stock crossings along the transport route.

A summary of those plans will be contained in the CTMP, including:

(i) the physical extent and nature of the works;

(ii) a schedule of start and finish dates;

(iii) details for sourcing materials and disposal of spoil;

(iv) provisions for advisory signage;

(v) arrangements for temporary traffic management and supervision; and

(vi) contact telephone numbers.

Depending on the timing of these works, this component of the CTMP may be prepared and circulated in advance of the rest.


6

4.14 Pavement Maintenance

The CTMP will summarise the key aspects of regular pavement maintenance on roads identified in the resource consent, including:

(i) service contract arrangements

(ii) triggers for intervention (eg: size of pothole);

(iii) intervention treatments (including materials specifications); and

(iv) response times.

The CTMP will also include requirements for monitoring the oversize vehicle route from SH2 to the Site, during the turbine component delivery phase, to ensure any road damage is identified and repaired.

4.15 Monitoring

The CTMP will provide a detailed schedule of the various elements of monitoring relating to public roads and transport.

The schedule will also include the specific data to be measured, the method of monitoring, the frequency with which monitoring will be undertaken, triggers for intervention, and the corresponding response.

4.16 Incident Reporting

The CTMP will set out requirements and procedures for incident reporting.

4.17 Emergency Services

The plan shall set out emergency service planning provisions including those related to:

(i) Site access and operations;

(ii) local environment servicing and access;

(iii) strategic network continuity; and

(iv) communications provisions.

4.18 Contingency Planning

The provisioning for contingency shall be set out. It shall outline key risk areas, such as traffic congestion, potential for storm damage in construction zones, vehicle crash instances (and others) and describe what management / communication and planning provisions are to be established to avoid / minimise or mitigate potential adverse situations.

4.19 Temporary Traffic Management Planning

The planning requirements set out in COPTTM and provided for within the following pro-forma sheets shall be completed.


7

Traffic

Management Plan Reference

For Office Use Only

Organisation

Contractor

Client

Contract Name/Number

N/A

RCA Consent Reference

Location Road Name(s)

Road Level Speed

Limit

From - To RP

Description of Activity

Work Programme

Proposed/ Restricted Work

Hours

Traffic Details (Main Route)

AADT

Peak Hour Flow

Proposed Traffic Management

Method

Active: General Procedures Unattended:


8

Traffic Management Plan

Reference

For Office Use Only Night:

Proposed Speed Restrictions

Positive Traffic Management

Measures

Lane Restrictions Restricted Speed Minimum Lane Width Delineation Pedestrians Cyclists

Contingency Plans

Public Notification

Personal Safety


9


Reference

For Office Use Only

On-Site Monitoring

Other Information (eg. delay calcs, EED

issues, temporary speed issues, etc)

Layout Diagrams

EED Applicable? Y/N - YES Attached Y/N

Traffic Controllers

Name (STMS) .

Phone (24 hours)

Name (TC) Cert No:

Phone (24 hours)

TMP prepared accurately to represent Site conditions and submitted by

Contractor/Applicant Cert No:

Date

Requires Amendment

Engineer Cert No:

Date


10


Reference

For Office Use Only This TMP is Approved on the Following Basis

1. To the best of the approving Engineer’s judgment this TMP conforms to the requirements of Transit New Zealand’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management.

2. This plan is approved on the basis that the activity, the location and the road environment have been correctly represented by the applicant.Any inaccuracy in the portrayal of this information is the responsibility of the applicant. The STMS for the activity is reminded that it is the STMS’s duty to “Postpone, cancel or modify operations due to the adverse traffic, weather or other conditions that affect the safety of this Site” (reference A4.5).

Approving Engineer: ........................................................................................................................................................... (Name and Certificate Number) ........................................................................................................................................................... (Signature)

Acceptance by:

TMC: ................................................................. Cert No: ................................................................. Signature: .................................................................

Date: ..............................................

Acceptance by:

.................................................................................................................................. (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)

Acceptance by:

................................................................................................................................... (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)


11


Reference

For Office Use Only

Acceptance by: Applicant

................................................................................................................................... (Signature) .........................................................................................................................................(Name) ........................................................................................................................................... (Title) ...........................................................................................................................................(Date)


12

4.19.1 Temporary Speed Restrictions

Application for temporary speed restrictions shall be made on the following form (also included in COPTTM). APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY SPEED RESTRICTION

Pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Traffic Regulations ……………. Sought by (Contractor) For (Client) Contract No. (if appropriate) Road Name / State Highway Situated at From Route Position From the date of To the date of Between the hours of: Approval granted by: Name: ……………………………………………………… Position: …………………………………………………… Signature: …………………………………………………. Date: ……………………………………………………… Special Conditions to apply: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


13

4.19.2 COPTTM Variations

Variations from the provisions within COPTTM (and the Local Authority supplement) shall be made in accordance with the relevant COPTTM provisions and necessary approvals from the relevant Territorial Authority.

4.19.3 Engineering Exception Decisions

Application for an Engineering Exception Decision, as provided for within COPTTM shall be made on the pro-forma form within COPTTM.

4.20 Communication Protocols

Communication protocols are important to the success of the CTMP. Primary contact details will be clearly recorded as the point of contact for road users.

Specific contact arrangements will be made for farmers to advise the project team of planned stock movements. These will then be communicated to project drivers enabling them to avoid that time or otherwise modify their travel as appropriate.

Finally, the CTMP will record a list of people and organisations that the CTMP will be distributed to. All amendments and updates to the CTMP, as approved by the Councils, will then be made accessible to those named on the list.

5. Specific Standards

A number of specific standards have been identified as necessary components of construction traffic management and are therefore mandatory standards to be included in the CTMP. They are:

5.1 Traffic Flows (i) contractor vehicle movements to and from the Site shall be minimised by adopting

shared travel, return waste carriage, and other vehicle number minimisation techniques.

5.2 Wind Farm Access Points (i) the primary Wind Farm Access points shall be located and constructed as

described in the application or as otherwise approved;

(ii) all CHWF construction traffic must use the primary access points, with the exception of:

- specific exception sites to be listed once confirmed

(iii) other Site access transport conditions of consent to be identified here once established.


14

5.3 Travel Routes (i) All conditions of consent relating to the management and control of travel on the

defined routes are to be recorded here.

5.4 Driver Protocols (i) drivers travelling to or from the Site must do so safely, in full compliance with the

law, including in respect of speed limits, following distances, forward sight when overtaking, being able to stop within the length of road visible (or half the length on roads without centrelines), and not driving carelessly or dangerously;

(ii) drivers with CB radios must radio in to the gatehouse when leaving the nearest town for traffic updates or notifications;

(iii) when aware of any emergency vehicles (including vets responding to emergency calls), approaching from in front or behind, drivers must pull over well in advance to provide unimpeded movement;

(iv) drivers must reduce their speed to 20km/h when passing a school bus which is slowing down, stopped, or accelerating in relation to picking up or setting down children;

(v) drivers must reduce their speed to a maximum of 30km/h when:

- passing children walking, cycling or waiting on the side of the road

- passing an oncoming school bus (which isn’t slowing down, stopped or accelerating such that the 20km/h limit applies)

- passing someone riding or leading a horse along the road

- approaching a stock crossing with the amber flashing light operating

- approaching an area where a stock shift is known to be occurring

(vi) truck drivers must not use engine brakes (particularly Jacobs Brakes) on define relevant sections of road here, except where the load being carried and the grade of the road make use of such braking absolutely necessary for safe driving.

(vii) truck drivers travelling on school bus routes at the same time as an oncoming school bus must use their CB radio to identify the location of the bus and pull over in a safe location before the school bus reaches and passes them;

(viii) truck drivers must let traffic behind them pass at regular locations including those opportunities that occur at intersections, wide driveways, sections of road with adequate forward sight distance, gravel pits etc;

(ix) disciplinary procedures shall include consideration of a requirement that a vehicle tracking system (with driver behaviour functionality) be installed in the vehicle of any project driver who is the subject of a credible complaint or identified breach of the road rules or Construction Traffic Management Plan. Any subsequent breaches identified by the system shall result in disciplinary action.

5.5 Oversize Transporters (i) the arrangements for the delivery of overweight and Over-dimensioned loads and

turbine components to the Site should avoid peak periods of traffic on the network


15

and minimise as far as practicable disruption and disturbance to the residents. This shall include:

- list travel time restrictions here

(ii) overweight and Over-dimension load permits for turbine components shall be appended to the CTMP;

(iii) pilots shall be in radio contact with other trucks to ensure passing occurs at safe and convenient locations;

(iv) in the event of a breakdown, accident or road failure, the transporter crew shall do the following:

- park the pilot vehicles in locations where they maximise safety, considering overhanging components, and blind bends on approaches

- contact emergency services (including Police) in the case of an accident;

- contact the project manager

- contact the road controlling authority (Tararua District Council, Masterton District Council or NZ Transport Agency)

- contact the security gate to advise all other project traffic, and local traffic via CB radio

- follow all instructions from Police and the road controlling authority

- in the case of an accident, the vehicles involved should not be moved until instructed by Police.

5.6 Road Improvements (i) List the road improvement and maintenance requirements here from the

conditions of consent;

(ii) any damage to the roads on the oversize vehicle route between SH2 and the Site caused by oversize vehicles travelling to the Site shall be repaired by the Consent Holder, with intervention triggers, response modes and response times as set out in the relevant Tararua and Masterton District Council road maintenance contracts;

(iii) close liaison shall occur with Tararua and Masterton District Council engineers in designing and planning Local Road improvements to maximise the benefit to the district road network;

(iv) the management of traffic at road improvement sites shall be in accordance with the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management, including the Local Roads Supplement;

(v) subject to the approval of individual farmers, the Consent Holder shall supply and install remotely operated flashing amber lights at regularly used stock crossings on the roads defined for maintenance in the conditions of consent. The Consent Holder shall not be responsible for the operation of the lights, but shall be required to maintain them for the duration of the construction project;

(vi) signs shall be erected advising all drivers of a channel for CB communication in the area east of Alfredton;


16

(vii) subject to monitoring, additional pull over bays may be constructed where required on the turbine component transport route to facilitate passing.

5.7 Monitoring

Monitoring of public roads and traffic management is to be undertaken as indicated in Table 1.

MONITORING FREQUENCY REPORTING

Traffic movements through Wind Farm Access Points, including date, time, driver, vehicle type, number of passengers, Wind Farm Access Point used

Continuously Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Safety and effectiveness of temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites

Daily when working Weekly, to Project Manager

Safety and effectiveness of temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites and management of construction traffic as a whole

Weekly Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Condition of Waitahora Valley Road between Waitahora Road and Site, including checks for ruts, pot holes, flushing and bleeding, and the condition of the whole oversize vehicle route between SH2 and the Site during the turbine component delivery phase

Weekly Monthly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Safety and effectiveness of oversize load piloting procedures

Once, at start of turbine delivery

Within a week to Project Manager, NZTA and Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Structural condition of bridges As required by overweight load permits

As required by permits, to NZTA and Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Register of incidents and public comments/complaints

Continuously Weekly, to Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Serious incidents, including those involving any injuries

As they arise Immediately to Project Manager and Tararua and Masterton District Councils

Table 1: Public Road and Traffic Management Monitoring

5.8 Incident Reporting (i) road incidents must be reported, including:

- any road crashes, including damage only;

- any near misses, which includes occurrences where evasive action was required by one or more parties and/or where heavy braking was required; and

- any breakdowns or similar requiring a recovery vehicle;

(ii) incidents shall be recorded in the register along with all comments and feedback received from the public;

(iii) serious incidents, including those involving any injuries, must be reported immediately to the project manager and Tararua and Masterton District Councils;


17

(iv) the register shall be reviewed weekly by the project manager and any corrective actions recorded. The register shall then be forwarded to Tararua and Masterton District Councils weekly.

5.9 Communications (i) the Consent Holder shall ensure the relevant provisions of the CTMP and road

safety issues are included in the Site induction and regular “toolbox talks”;

(ii) subject to the approval of school bus service operators and individual residents, the Consent Holder shall supply and install CB radios for school buses on roads subject to a maintenance or traffic management control due to the CHWF, to enable communication with construction traffic and the gate house;

(iii) a freephone number shall be established for public enquiries relating to any aspect of the project including comments on driver behaviour;

(iv) vehicles which are committed to the CHWF construction project shall have the freephone number displayed, along with a vehicle identification number for use in any public feedback regarding driver behaviour;

(v) the freephone number shall also be available to be used:

- to note any issues relating to temporary traffic management at public road improvement sites, oversize vehicle movement, or construction traffic management in general;

- to notify the project team of any planned stock movements along or across Waitahora Road or Waitahora Valley Road; and

- to notify the project team of any events or activities around which construction traffic should be arranged

(vi) where information is to be relayed back to project drivers, it shall be done by notifying the security guard at the gate house (Site access point), who will in turn advise drivers when they radio in from the town departure, or when they drive out of the Site;

(vii) copies of the CTMP shall be provided to at least the following:

- consents manager, Tararua and Masterton District Councils;

- roading manager, Tararua and Masterton District Councils;

- regional state highways manager, NZ Transport Agency;

- NZ Police;

- NZ Fire Service ;

- St Johns Ambulance;

- Alfredton primary school;

- List other identified schools here;

- List VET Services here;

- List commercial carriers here;

- Rural Fuel;

- Allied Petroleum;


18

- BP;

- Transport Officer, School Support Ltd, Napier;

- Castle Hill CHWF Community Liaison Group; and

- shall be made available on a digital media site for general access.

(viii) any updates to the plan, as approved by Tararua and Masterton District Councils, shall be provided to the above.

6. Presentation

The CTMP is to be well presented in a format that clearly and efficiently conveys the information to the range of recipients included on the distribution list.

If appropriate, a summary shall also be prepared for wider distribution.

Traffic Design Group Ltd July 2011

Appendix B: Wind Farm Access Point, Over-dimension and Over-weight

Documents

Transcript of Appendix B: Wind Farm Access Point, Over-dimension and Over-weight