Palmerston North Urban Bus Service Review Phase Two Report May 2014 Author Kelly Curry Transport Planner May 2014 CONTACT 24hr Freephone 0508 800 800 [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz Kairanga Cnr Rongotea & Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Rds Palmerston North Levin Palmerston North 11 Bruce Road 11-15 Victoria Avenue SERVICE Marton REGIONAL Cnr Hammond & Hair Sts DEPOTS CENTRES HOUSES Taihape Wanganui Torere Road Taumarunui 181 Guyton Street 34 Maata Street Ohotu Woodville Cnr Vogel (SH2) & Tay Sts POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 | 06 9522 929 ADDRESS F CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Review 1.1.1 Be value for money 1.1.2 Promote passenger growth 1.1.3 Be supported by the community 1.2 The Review Process 2. Key Themes Emerging In Phase One 2.1 Coverage of the City 2.2 Frequency 2.3 Structure of the Urban Routes 2.4 Transfers 2.5 Distance to bus stops 2.6 Hours of service 2.7 Weekend Services 2.8 Massey University Services 3. Local Travel Patterns 3.1 2013 Census Data 3.2 The New Zealand Household Travel Survey 3.3 Bus Ticketing System Analysis 3.3.1 Transfers 3.4 Comparisons with other Networks 4. Description of Options Considered 4.1 Assumptions 4.1.1 Bus travel time 4.1.2 Standard bus size 4.1.3 Transfers 4.2 Current Services 4.3 Option One (Status Quo Plus) Table Five: Option One summary 4.4 Option Two (includes Lollipop, Orbiter, Hospital-City-Massey, Massey Shuttle, Ashhurst-Longburn network) 4.4.1 Network operating hours 4.4.2 Frequency Two options for frequency for the lollipop routes have been developed: Table Six: Option Two summary 4.5 Option Three (Grid) 5. Assessment of Options 5.1 Option One 5.1.1 National examples 5.2 Option Two 5.2.1 General 5.2.2 Lollipops 5.2.3 Transfers 5.2.4 Orbiter 5.2.5 Hospital – City – Massey (HCM) 5.2.6 Ashhurst and Longburn 5.2.7 Massey shuttle 5.2.8 Effect on Massey 5.2.9 National examples 5.3 Option Three 5.3.1 General 5.3.2 Transfers and Frequency 5.3.3 Effect on Massey 5.3.4 Operation and Infrastructure Requirements 5.3.5 National examples 6. Pricing comparisons 7. Funding Options and Implementation 8. Public Transport Benefits 8.1 Transport Service User Benefits 8.2 Vehicle Operating Costs 9. Discussion 9.1 Option One 9.2 Option Two 9.3 Option Three 9.4 Summary 10. Next Steps Appendix 1: Feedback from Palmerston North City Council Appendix 2: Current network map Appendix 3: Option Two Maps Appendix 4: Option Three Maps Appendix 5: Cost Modelling Options 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Review Horizons Regional Council plans, funds and manages public transport services in the Region. As part of this process, Horizons is required by legislation to prepare a Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP/the Plan) which sets out the public transport1that Horizons proposes for the region and any policies/standards that apply to those services. The RPTP 2011-2021 sets out a number of future service improvements to be undertaken over the life of the Plan, subject to funding availability and demand. The Plan also includes the following action: Undertake a first principles review of the Palmerston North bus services, including timetables, routes and service structure. The key question to be considered for the review is “What is the optimal2public transport network design for Palmerston North into the future?” In addition, several guiding principles have been identified for the future network design for the Palmerston North services. These are that the network should: 1.1.1 Be value for money The Good Practice Guide for Public Sector, Procurement Guidance for Public Entities (The Office of the Auditor General, June 2008) defines value for money as: “Using resources effectively, economically, and without waste, with due regard for the total costs and benefits of an arrangement, and its contribution to the outcomes the entity is trying to achieve. The principle of value for money when procuring goods or services does not necessarily mean selecting the lowest price, but rather the best possible outcome for the total cost of ownership or whole-of-life cost” 1.1.2 Promote passenger growth The network should provide capacity for future growth and be sufficiently attractive to encourage new passengers. 1.1.3 Be supported by the community This includes support from users of the service, as well as the general public who will partly pay for the service through their transport scheme rates. All network options developed will be tested against these principles. 1 Public transport services in the Horizons region includes bus services, the Total Mobility taxi scheme for people with disabilities, health shuttles and community vans. 2 Optimal – an efficient, effective and safe transport system that supports the region’s economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being. 1.2 The Review Process The review has been divided into three phases. Phase One (information gathering) included seeking public feedback on what the “ideal” service would be, analysing the results of previous surveys, submissions and reviews, as well as looking at other network examples (national and international). The Phase One report was presented to the Passenger Transport Committee in August 2013. Phase Two (stakeholder consultation and development of options) commenced in September 2013 and focuses on formulating a number of network options for further public consultation. Options have been developed by a stakeholder group made up of representatives from key organisations such as Palmerston North City Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency (Transport Agency), Massey University, Universal College of Learning (UCOL), public transport operators and user representatives. Phase Three (selection of preferred option) will focus on presenting options to the public for further feedback. The information presented will include details on route structures and frequency, potential costs and funding options. Phase Three will commence in June 2014 and it is expected that the Passenger Transport Committee will select the preferred option in November 2014. The following key stages of the review have been peer reviewed by an external transport consultant: Phase Two – development of options The external transport consultant will also peer review: Phase Three – selection of the preferred option including testing against the guiding principles Review of the final report All other stages of the review will be undertaken by Horizons Regional Council, with input from the working group as required. 2. Key Themes Emerging In Phase One The aim of the first stage of the review was to seek general public feedback on the ideal features of a future bus network for Palmerston North. A campaign was developed, asking people to “Imagine…..If you could design Palmerston North’s bus service from scratch, what would be the most important features?” In total, 113 written submissions were received on Phase One of the review. The major themes raised in the submissions are discussed below. 2.1 Coverage of the City Many submitters commented on areas of the city that are perceived to not be adequately serviced by the current bus system: Ashhurst Longburn The Summerhill area – specifically Cashmere Drive, Pacific Drive, Clifton Terrace and Atawhai Road. Palmerston North Hospital Palmerston North Airport Palmerston North Railway Station 2.2 Frequency A large number of submitters commented that further increases to the frequency of service are required in order to encourage more passengers to utilise the services. Suggestions for ideal frequency ranged from every five minutes to 10-15 minutes in peak times and every 15-20 minutes during the off-peak periods. 2.3 Structure of the Urban Routes The current urban loop system which alternates direction is perceived as confusing for new or would-be passengers. Submitters noted that this system, while appropriate for low to moderate patronage, now may be one of the biggest barriers to increased uptake of the services. For those living at either end of a loop, journey times are either very quick (taking the direct route to the city centre) or very long (taking the “long way” via the suburbs to the city centre). This is exacerbated if a transfer to another route is required. Many submitters noted that they would want their journey to be as fast and direct as possible and in order to encourage bus usage the journey time should be as fast as, if not quicker, than biking, walking or using private vehicle. Some submitters raised the idea of a “grid” public transport network for the city. This involves a number of intersecting routes, which allow passengers to transfer and travel anywhere within the city without having to change buses in the city centre. Other submitters suggested a “pendulum” or “lollipop” type route configuration where routes are mostly direct, except for small loops at the ends and run through the city centre to provide across town coverage. Several submitters suggested the introduction of an outer-city circular system, similar to the Orbiter services provided in Hamilton and Christchurch. Such a system could cover schools, facilities like the airport, railway station and hospital, as well as retail and other demand generators. 2.4 Transfers Views regarding transfers were varied. Some submitters did not see having to transfer between services as a disadvantage, provided the wait times between services were minimal. Others submitters viewed transfers as a disadvantage, particularly for short journeys. 2.5 Distance to bus stops Those submitters who favoured frequent, direct services, tended to support the concept of walking further to a bus stop in order to access a more direct service.