KENSINGTON SWAN
89 The Terrace Ph +64 4 472 7877 PO Box 10246 Fax +64 4 472 2291 Wellington 6143 DX SP26517
In the Environment Court of New Zealand
Auckland Registry
ENV-2013-AKL-000174
Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)
In the matter of a Notion of Motion under Section 87G requesting the granting of resource consents to Waiheke Marinas Limited to establish a marina at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke Island, in the Hauraki Gulf
Statement of Evidence in Reply of Anthony William Blom for
Auckland Transport
Introduction
1 My full name is Anthony William Blom.
2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2-4 of my statement of evidence in chief, dated 11 June 2014.
3 I confirm that I continue to have authority to give evidence on behalf of Auckland Transport (‘AT’).
Scope of Evidence
4 This statement of evidence in reply addresses the evidence relating to ferry services, bus services and public transport capacity raised in the evidence of: a Allen Davies (an individual section 274 party);
b Susan Pawley (an individual section 274 party);
c Thomas Greve and Kirsten Lewis (individual section 274 parties);
d Todd Langwell (appearing as a witness for Direction Matiatia Incorporated and others (‘DMI’));
e Christine Gisby (appearing as a witness for DMI); f Phillip Judd (appearing as a witness for DMI); and g Susan McCann (appearing as a witness for DMI).
Multiple ferries per schedule sailing
5 The evidence of Mr Davies is important because of his current employment as a part time bus driver for the Waiheke Bus Company. He has had first-hand experience of bus manoeuvring and parking in the Matiatia keyhole area, including during the busy times in the summer. Similarly, the evidence of
Ms Gisby is particularly interesting because it sets out her experiences as owner and operator of See Waiheke Tours on Waiheke Island.1
6 Mr Davies’ evidence2 observes that there can sometimes be “as many as four
ferries serving [a] sailing with passengers arriving from 11.40am and the last
1 Gisby, 27 July 2014, para 1.
passengers not arriving until after 12 noon, and the last bus not departing the terminal until after 12.10pm”.
7 Ms Pawley also notes that “Ferries are often doubled up over Summer”.3
Mr Greve and Ms Lewis note that there can be additional Fullers sailings between the normal scheduled timetable to meet visitor demands.4 Similarly, Ms Gisby’s evidence5 is that, between mid-October and early May, there are regularly at least two ferries each hour, and sometimes as many as four ferries.
Mr Phillip Judd makes a similar observation,6 as does Mr McCann.7
8 As noted in my evidence in chief8, the existing Fullers ferry service to Matiatia is exempt from the passenger transport operating model rules, and this means that the ferry operator decides the size of the ferries and their frequency, not AT. Accordingly, the ferry operator is entitled to service passengers using more than one ferry vessel per sailing, and this is not unusual during the holiday period or when a festival is taking place on Waiheke Island.
9 Fullers will typically advise AT when it provides additional ferries, and typically co-ordinates with the local bus operator (Waiheke Buses) to co-ordinate buses to meet ferries. I expect that the period of congestion at the Matiatia keyhole area would be extended when more than one ferry vessel is used to service a sailing.
Chartered and other vessels
10 The evidence of Mr Greve and Ms Lewis notes that chartered Fullers vessels arrive and depart the Matiatia Wharf in addition to the public scheduled vessels.9 Ms Gisby’s evidence is also that “there are other ferries arriving from other
operators offering chartered trips to the Island”. Mr Judd notes that Pine Harbour ferries will berth at Pier 3 during peak times such as the Sculpture Festival.10 11 AT manages the Matiatia Wharf, and allows access to this Wharf to commercial
operators in addition to the scheduled ferry sailings – for clarity, while Fullers provide the scheduled ferries, they also provide other charter services.
3 Pawley, 3 August 2014, para 5.
4 Greve and Lewis, 5 August 2014, para 54.
5 Gisby, 27 July 2014, para 10.
6 Judd, 24 July 2014, paras 21 and 23.
7 McCann, 27 July 2014, para 20.
8 Blom, 11 June 2014, para 32.
9 Greve and Lewis, 5 August 2014, para 49.
Possible future changes
12 At paragraph 62 of their evidence, Mr Greve and Ms Lewis highlight Matiatia’s role as gateway to Waiheke. This gateway role is discussed in my evidence in chief11 and I note that there are no plans to change the gateway function of Matiatia, nor any reason to do so.
13 The evidence on Mr Judd12 is that he uses Pier 3 and Pier 4 at Matiatia for the purposes of embarking/disembarking passengers, and for the purposes of taking on fuel and water for his charter business. He notes that 10 or more commercial charter vessels can be seen berthing at Pier 3 and Pier 4 on any typical day. He notes that pleasure craft also use Pier 3 and Pier 4 for these purposes.
14 As I have explained in this evidence in reply, AT provides the wharves at Matiatia. However, AT does not restrict access to Pier 3 and Pier 4 – any vessel can use these Piers for short periods of time for the purposes such as those described by Mr Judd.
15 From a public transport perspective, use of Pier 3 and Pier 4 does not currently interfere with the ferry service, and the bus service on the island is not scheduled to coincide with the use of these Piers. Nonetheless, AT supports the continued responsible use of Pier 3 and Pier 4, as currently occurs.
16 Ms McCann supports greater competition in the transport service market, and is concerned that the proposed marina will prevent this because it will hinder access to existing or newly developed wharves at Matiatia13. Ms McCann’s opinion is that the proposed marina would effectively preclude a competitor offering passenger ferry services as it would make the old wharf inaccessible to large passenger ferries14. AT wishes ferry and bus public transport users to have an improved experience, in order to support growing passenger numbers on public transport. AT would be concerned if the proposed marina limited options for providing ferry services to Matiatia in the future, including by reducing the possibility of a second ferry operator running a scheduled service.
17 Paragraph 51 of Mr Greve and Ms Lewis’ evidence notes that the number of ferries and scheduled sailings have increased remarkably over the years, and questions whether mitigation measures will be sufficient to accommodate future changes. I agree that any measures introduced at the proposed marina to ensure that Marina traffic does not adversely impact upon public transport services within
11 Blom, 11 June 2014, para 15.
12 Judd, 24 July 2014, paras 11 to 19.
13 McCann, 27 July 2014, paras 26-29.
the Matiatia keyhole area will need to be flexible and adaptable, so that future changes in ferry and bus services will not be compromised.
18 Ms Gisby’s evidence discusses congestion at the Matiatia keyhole area, and comments that “I am aware that there is some suggestion of having a controlled
system which permits only authorised berth-holders to pass through the keyhole”.15
19 Since preparing my evidence in chief, AT has investigated the possibility of commissioning automated access systems at a number of locations in Auckland, including at the Matiatia keyhole. The details of this system are not yet known as investigations are at an early stage. AT’s intention is that any automated system will be able to detect the length of time vehicles spend in the keyhole area, monitor for congestion, and screen out those vehicles which are not permitted within the keyhole area. In order for the automated system to function, the marina will need to provide AT with the details of vehicles which are permitted pass through the keyhole and into the marina. It is possible that, once the automated system is in place, it will minimise the need for the AT Parking Officers to manually screen traffic entering the keyhole area.
20 At this stage AT is uncertain about when any such automated system would be installed at Matiatia.
Bus services
21 AT sets the timetable for the bus network on Waiheke Island, and the bus service is provided by Waiheke Buses Ltd. In paragraph 8 above I note that AT does not control the ferry schedule. However, AT does control the bus schedule, and this is designed to cater for tourists and local commuters using the ferry from Matiatia. 22 Ms McCann’s evidence16 is that Fullers Transport Group (I understand she is
referring to Waiheke Buses Ltd) does not generally schedule additional buses to meet the increased number of ferry sailings during the peak season, and that buses can become overcrowded.
23 Mr Greve and Ms Lewis also state that the number of buses will need to increase to meet increasing visitor demands17.
24 I note that charter tours as well as additional scheduled bus services use the pickup area. While AT has control over the scheduled public bus services, it does
15 Gisby, 27 July 2014, para 18(b).
16 McCann, 27 July 2014, para 24(c).
not manage the timetable of chartered coaches and buses. However, these charter services will require access to the keyhole with a priority secondary only to the scheduled public buses.
25 If AT considered there was sufficient ongoing demand, it would contract more frequent bus services. The Court should not assume that bus services into Matiatia will remain at the current frequency and scale.
26 I agree with Mr Greve and Ms Lewis that “any restrictions on future ferry sailings
and bus services (public and private) is unacceptable…”.18
27 I agree with Mr Davies’ statement at his paragraph 19 that “the number one
priority at Matiatia should be safe access to and from public transport”.
Public transport capacity on Waiheke Island
28 The evidence of Todd Langwell19 is that the provision of parking “represents a
constraint such that reliance on alternative modes of transport will increase. Most of this increase is likely to rely on public transport.”
29 My evidence in chief20 is that AT’s focus is on growing passengers on public transport. I agree with Mr Langwell21 that the increasing importance of public transport means that allowing berth-holders access through the keyhole area to the proposed marina carpark requires careful consideration.
Anthony William Blom
23 September 2014
18 Greve and Lewis, 5 August 2014, para 59.
19 Langwell, 29 July 2014, para 23.
20 Blom, 11 June 2014, para 19.
