26/08/2026
CAMBRIDGE TRANSPORT NETWORK REVIEW - My thoughts provided to Cambridge Connections team - Sorry its such a long read!!
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Strategic Transport Network Review – Draft Technical Report. The report is comprehensive and thought-provoking, and provides a valuable strategic perspective on Cambridge's future transport challenges and opportunities. There are, however, several matters that I believe warrant further clarification and consideration.
Firstly, I found the report somewhat difficult to navigate due to inconsistencies between the report's internal page references and the agenda page numbering. For ease of reference, this review uses the agenda page numbers throughout.
Secondly, while the report is presented as a joint project involving Waipā District Council and Beca, it does not identify or acknowledge the individual authors or principal contributors. Given the significant strategic implications of the report, transparency regarding authorship would be helpful.
I am also concerned about the limited time available for elected members to review the document. The report was distributed at midday on Friday, leaving little opportunity for meaningful analysis or consultation. Questions arising from the review could realistically only be submitted on Monday, providing limited time for responses before the Strategic Planning and Policy Committee meeting on Wednesday morning. Given the importance of this work to Cambridge's long-term transport planning, a longer review period would have been desirable.
Accordingly I would question the recommendations to endorse the report as there are too many questions over aspects of the report. I would prefer that the recommendation endorses the review as a technical input to development the draft Cambridge Connections Transport Plan, noting the acknowledged limitations of the WRTM and that further localised corridor, intersection, and package assessment will be required before a preferred future bridge corridor and implementation programme are determined.
I also agree that momentum of the Cambridge Connections programme should be maintained and consider this is an important achieved milestone.
________________________________________
Questions on the provided report:
Page 25-26: Executive Summary
Rural Growth Impacts
The report appropriately highlights the significance of forecast population growth, noting an additional 15,000 residents over the next 30 years.
However, it would be beneficial to provide greater context regarding Cambridge's future service population. Infometrics estimates the urban Cambridge population in 2026 at approximately 22,700 residents. Based on the report's growth projections, this would suggest an urban population approaching 38,000 by 2055/56.
Historically, Cambridge has been classified as a rural service town. More recently, its growth has seen it transition into the "medium urban area" classification. Nevertheless, Cambridge continues to provide economic, educational, health, and social services to a substantial rural catchment, including Hautapu, Swayne Road, Karapiro, Maungatautari, Pukerimu, Kaipaki, and Rotoorangi.
When this wider service area is considered, the population served by Cambridge is projected to increase from approximately 32,710 residents (Stats NZ, June 2025 estimate) to nearly 48,000 by 2055. This begins to approach the population traditionally associated with a small city.
The associated increase in rural vehicle movements to and from Cambridge will place additional pressure on the transport network. What allowance has been made in the WRTM and the supplementary analysis for growth in Cambridge’s rural and rural residential catchment and what proportion of forecast trips into Cambridge is generated outside the identified urban growth cells?
Use of the Waikato Regional Transport Model (WRTM)
The report acknowledges that the Waikato Regional Transport Model is a strategic planning tool and has limitations in forecasting traffic volumes on individual streets or assessing localised intersection performance. The report proposes that phase two may use more detailed tools for modelling.
As an example, several intersections, including Cambridge Road/Hooker Avenue and Victoria Street/Norfolk Drive, are identified as constrained. However, no comparison is provided against other known pressure points such as: Victoria Street/Cook Street; Shakespeare Street/Cook Street; Shakespeare Street/Achilles Avenue/Tīrau Road; Victoria Street/Queen Street; Victoria Street/Hamilton Road
If more detailed modelling is necessary, what conclusions can properly be endorsed now, and what conclusions must remain provisional until that modelling is completed?
Transport planning advice I have received indicates that PTV Vissim is one of the leading tools for detailed microscopic traffic simulation, particularly in assessing complex intersections and multimodal interactions involving pedestrians and cyclists. The report suggests SIDRA. Further analysis using this type of modelling may assist in understanding localised network constraints.
Before a preferred corridor is selected, appropriate intersection level, and where necessary, microsimulation modelling should be undertaken for the critical existing and proposed corridors.
Impact of Roundabouts
The report notes that traffic volumes across the Victoria Street Bridge have remained relatively static, suggesting the corridor is operating at or near capacity.
However, there is little discussion regarding the influence of the Cook Street roundabout on the bridge's operational capacity. Increasing traffic volumes, particularly heavy vehicles that cannot use the high-level bridge, require exiting bridge traffic to give way, potentially reducing the effective capacity of the corridor.
Similar operational impacts may occur at the Victoria Street/Hamilton Road and Victoria Street/Queen Street roundabouts.
Given the importance of these intersections to current network performance, what consideration has been given to the capacity of the corridors leading to the bridges that is determined by the approaches, intersections and competing traffic movements.
________________________________________
Page 27: Executive Summary
Traffic Counts
The recommendations regarding ongoing traffic monitoring are appropriate.
However, there may be opportunities to obtain more meaningful information from existing traffic count programmes by extracting hourly traffic volumes for typical weekday operating periods (Monday to Friday, 7.00am to 6.00pm).
There is concern of Class 4 and Class 5 vehicles. Can you advise:
1. What heavy vehicle class 4 and class 5 heavy vehicle assumptions are used?
2. How HCV vehicles are represented in capacity and delay calculations?
3. Has sensitivity testing been undertaken for greater than forecast heavy vehicle growth? and
4. Has any testing been done if quarry, waste, Hautapu and regional freight movements increase more rapidly than assumed?
This may provide a more accurate understanding of the factors contributing to congestion and network stress.
________________________________________
Page 29: Context – Land Use and the Road Network
Figure 2: Key Destinations
Several existing or proposed retirement and aged-care facilities do not appear to have been included within the mapping of key destinations:
1. St Andrew's Village
2. Oakdale Retirement Village
3. Cambridge Life
4. Resthaven Leamington
5. Proposed Arvida development at the former Henley Hotel site (currently on hold)
The proposed school within Growth Cell C2 is included despite being on hold. Applying the same logic, these facilities should also be acknowledged, given the increasing importance of the retirement and aged-care sector to Cambridge's demographic profile and travel demand.
Key Changes Over the Next 30 Years
The report refers to strengthening and diversifying agricultural activity.
I suggest this discussion could be expanded to specifically acknowledge growth within the rural residential population and the resulting transport demand implications.
________________________________________
Page 30: Context – One Network Framework
Road Classification
The One Network Framework introduces a different classification approach to the traditional local, collector, and arterial road hierarchy.
The designation of certain roads as Inter-Regional Connectors appears to emphasise efficient movement of vehicles and freight, with pedestrian access generally limited to designated crossing points.
What operational standards and interventions are required to enable the proposed inter-regional connectors to perform their intended movement function, and how will council resolve conflicts between that function and place, safety, walking, and cycling objectives along individual sections of those corridors?
Page 31: Current Network – Existing Traffic Volumes
Victoria Street Bridge and Corridor
As noted earlier in this review, greater consideration should be given to the influence of the three roundabouts located on Victoria Street at Cook Street, Queen Street, and Hamilton Road.
While the report examines traffic volumes and corridor performance, these intersections are critical determinants of network capacity and traffic flow. The operational performance of the roundabouts can directly affect the throughput of the Victoria Street corridor and bridge, particularly during peak periods.
The importance of Victoria Street as a strategic movement corridor is identified. To what extent does intersection performance currently constrain corridor capacity, and could operational or design changes improve network efficiency?
________________________________________
Page 33: Current Network – Existing Constrained Areas
Constrained Area Impacts and Traffic Diversion
The report appropriately identifies several constrained areas within the existing transport network.
However, consideration should also be given to the behavioural response of drivers when confronted with congestion. One common outcome is the use of alternative local roads as "rat-runs" to avoid delays on the primary network.
This phenomenon is an important transport planning consideration and, in my view, was not adequately reflected in previous strategic modelling exercises.
Examples currently observed within Cambridge include:
• Vogel Street and Queen Street corridor
• Norfolk Drive
Bryce Street historically functioned in a similar manner, although recent street redesign and traffic management measures appear to have partially reduced this behaviour.
Rat-running may create safety, amenity, and accessibility impacts in residential environments that are not apparent from strategic network modelling alone. How are these important traffic diversion patterns recognised within the planning?
________________________________________
Page 34: Current Network – Existing Transport Services
Public Transport Strategic Assessment
The report correctly identifies the significant growth in public transport patronage experienced in Cambridge in recent years.
The report also notes that planned service enhancements continue to focus primarily on travel between Cambridge and Hamilton, albeit serving a broader range of residential areas within Cambridge and Leamington.
Importantly, the report observes that increased local public transport services could:
• Improve access to key destinations throughout Cambridge.
• Provide an alternative to private vehicle trips.
• Reduce congestion pressures within the town centre and along Victoria Street.
• Support a broader range of local travel needs rather than focusing predominantly on commuter movements to Hamilton.
These findings suggest that there would be value in Council undertaking a strategic assessment of the future role of public transport within Cambridge. What plans exost to undertake an evaluation of whether future investment should prioritise local mobility outcomes, regional connectivity, or a balanced combination of both.
Emerging Forms of Public Transport
While the report references future public transport enhancements, consideration could also be given to emerging technologies and service models.
One example is autonomous shuttle technology, which may offer opportunities to address first-mile and last-mile transport challenges and improve access to key destinations without requiring traditional fixed-route bus services.
New Zealand has been at the forefront of developing and trialling autonomous public mobility solutions, particularly through the work of Ohmio, an Auckland-based company specialising in autonomous passenger shuttles.
Notable New Zealand trials have included:
• Christchurch Airport autonomous shuttle deployment.
• Wellington Waterfront autonomous transport trials.
• Paerata Rise Smart Village mobility project.
• World-first 5G-enabled autonomous vehicle testing in partnership with Spark.
The successful implementation of these trials has enabled export of New Zealand-developed technology to international markets, including South Korea, Australia, and the United States.
While autonomous transport solutions remain an emerging technology with relatively high deployment costs, they may become increasingly relevant over the planning horizon considered within this report.
Reference should also be made to the report:
Feasibility Study on Commercial Deployment of Automated Public Transport Vehicles in New Zealand (NZTA, Beca and SYSTRA, May 2024).
What consideration will undertaken of autonomous mobility services as a future transport option worthy of monitoring and potential future assessment?
________________________________________
Page 35: Current Network – Walking, Cycling and Micromobility
Alternative Mobility Options
The report identifies e-bikes as an increasingly important component of the transport network and recognises their role in improving accessibility.
Consideration could also be given to the growing use of e-scooters and other micromobility devices, which are becoming increasingly visible in urban environments.
Will the report consider whether commercial shared-micromobility services could form part of the future transport system and contribute to reducing short-distance vehicle trips?
________________________________________
Page 37: Future Network – Roles and Functions
Road Reclassification
The report refers to future changes under the One Network Framework (ONF).
Clarification would be helpful regarding the timing and implementation of these classifications.
Specifically:
• When will the proposed network classifications formally apply?
• Is Council already planning and managing roads using the future ONF classifications?
• If future network role is a key criterion within the Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA), will these classifications influence short-term infrastructure investment decisions?
Greater clarity on these matters would assist readers in understanding how future network aspirations are connected to current planning and investment programmes.
Network Optimisation Measures
The report contains limited discussion regarding opportunities to improve network performance through:
• Roundabout upgrades.
• Intersection optimisation.
• Signalisation improvements.
• Corridor management initiatives.
Given that these measures may deliver benefits more quickly and at lower cost than large-scale infrastructure projects, will the review consider the role these will play within the future network?
________________________________________
Page 38: Future Network – Strategic Movement Corridors
Strategic Freight Corridors
The report identifies the Albert Street, Queen Street and Victoria Street corridor as a Strategic Movement Corridor and a desirable route for Class 4 and Class 5 heavy vehicles.
This has implications for previous discussions regarding heavy vehicle movements associated with quarry operations, waste management activities, and Newcombe Road traffic.
There has also been discussion regarding the effective expansion of the Cambridge town centre to include the Lakewood retail precinct. If this broader interpretation is adopted, the Strategic Movement Corridor would pass directly through a significant commercial and pedestrian activity area.
This appears to create some tension with the report's wider objective of creating a more accessible and attractive town centre environment.
Have alternative heavy vehicle management approaches were considered, including: freight routing strategies; time-of-day restrictions; heavy vehicle management plans; alternative designated freight corridors?
________________________________________
Page 42: Strategic Intervention Analysis
Additional Option E and Additional Option F
The introduction of Options E & F is noteworthy.
However, as the options are subsequently not progressed through detailed modelling and evaluation, their inclusion risks creating uncertainty regarding the options under active consideration.
Clarification would be helpful regarding:
• Were Options E&F part of previous community consultation.
• Were they included within the long-list assessment process.
• Were their inclusion has discussed and endorsed by the Community Reference Group (CRG).
• What evidential status do E & F have relative to the three modelled corridors and could either of them ultimately become the preferred corridor without equivalent modelling and assessment? If not, why include them?
Reliance on the Waikato Regional Transport Model
As noted earlier, the limitations of the Waikato Regional Transport Model have been acknowledged, particularly regarding localised and intersection-level analysis.
Despite these limitations, the model appears to play a significant role in assessing and comparing bridge corridor options.
It would therefore be beneficial to explain how model limitations have been addressed and what additional evidence sources have been used to support strategic conclusions?
Option A – Movement Constraints
Cambridge Road North Intersections
The report recognises that traffic volumes would increase on Cambridge Road North under Option A due to access demands associated with a future bridge corridor.
While constraints are identified as moderate in some locations, they are assessed as high near St Peter's roundabout and Racecourse Road.
The report also references the need for intersection upgrades.
Clarification would be useful regarding the nature of these upgrades and whether they may include measures such as multi-lane roundabouts or other substantial intersection capacity improvements.
________________________________________
Page 46: Option C – Movement Constraints
Existing Network Pressures
The modelling indicates that because the Victoria Street Bridge is effectively operating at capacity, future cross-river growth would be accommodated predominantly by an enhanced Fergusson Bridge corridor.
If this assumption is correct, it also suggests that many of the existing traffic pressures entering Cambridge from the expressway would remain largely unchanged.
While the report identifies constraints on:
• Cambridge Road North
• Hamilton Road
• Norfolk Drive/Victoria Street
it appears to understate current and future pressures at:
• Victoria Street/Hamilton Road
• Queen Street/Albert Street
These intersections already experience significant congestion and may warrant greater consideration in future assessments.
________________________________________
Page 47: Option D – Findings
Northern Access via Tīrau Road
The findings relating to northern access via Tīrau Road are of particular interest.
However, it is unclear whether these conclusions are derived directly from transport modelling outputs or represent professional judgement by the authors.
This distinction is important given ongoing concerns regarding:
• Growth in Class 4 and Class 5 heavy vehicle volumes.
• Expansion of commercial activity around the Lakewood precinct.
• Increased quarry and waste management traffic movements.
It would also be useful to understand whether alternative heavy vehicle management measures were considered, including restrictions on freight movements through the town centre.
One of the recommendations of the review is to discontinue further technical investigation of an alternative state highway connection.
I would prefer the position to be:
No further stand alone detailed investigation of the Tirau Road interchange is required at present, but the interchange should remain available for testing in Phase 2 network modelling and should be reconsidered where updated freight, growth, State Highway or Southern Links assumptions materially affect the network.
________________________________________
Pages 51-52: Bridge Corridor Options
Advantages and Disadvantages Assessment
The comparative assessment of bridge corridor options is useful and provides a balanced summary of key strengths and weaknesses.
However, while the consultation and previous discussion largely centred on Options A, B and C, the assessment continues to reference Options E and F.
This raises questions regarding the purpose of retaining these additional options within the report and whether they remain under consideration.
Clarification of their status of Options E 7 F would assist readers in understanding the decision-making framework.
________________________________________
Page 53: Future Bridge Corridor – Technical Scope
Future Assessment Requirements
The report indicates that further technical assessment will be required before a preferred bridge corridor can be identified.
This raises an important governance question.
It would be useful for the report to clearly explain:
• Whether one of Options A, B or C is expected to emerge as the preferred corridor?
• What additional investigations are required?
• What decision-making steps remain before a corridor can be selected?
Providing this information would assist elected members in understanding the future programme of work.
________________________________________
Page 58: Appendix A – Modelling Outputs
Limitations and Caveats
Appendix A contains a number of important qualifications and limitations regarding the interpretation of modelling results.
In summary, these appear to include:
1. Limited reliance should be placed on the model for detailed corridor and intersection-level outcomes.
2. The future bridge corridor has not yet been determined.
3. Additional evidence sources have informed the analysis, although these are not described in detail.
4. Future network performance may differ from modelled outcomes.
Given the importance of these caveats, greater transparency regarding the assumptions, supplementary evidence sources, and confidence levels associated with the modelling would be helpful.
________________________________________
Pages 63-66: Levels of Service Maps
Existing LOS F Intersections
The Levels of Service (LOS) maps provide forecasts of future intersection performance and congestion levels.
Clarification would be helpful regarding whether the maps are intended to demonstrate deterioration from current conditions or simply identify future areas of concern.
For example, under both the Do Minimum scenario and Option C, several known congestion locations, including the Victoria Street roundabouts, do not appear to show a significant worsening of performance despite substantial forecast traffic growth.
This raises questions regarding:
• How existing LOS F conditions have been represented?
• Whether capacity constraints are effectively limiting forecast traffic growth?
• How congestion at currently constrained intersections is expected to evolve over time?
A clearer explanation of these outcomes would assist readers in interpreting the modelling results and understanding the practical implications for future network performance.
