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. Others noted that for a range of reasons, such as age and disability, having to walk further to access services would be a disadvantage and preferred services that covered more areas of the city.

2.6 Hours of service

Feedback from the public strongly supported the provision of later weekday services. Later weekday services took several different forms – services after 6:00 pm to cater for those who do not work a traditional 8:00 am to 5:00 pm work day; services later in the evening to cater for those who wished to attend an evening movie, show or late night shopping; and services after midnight which could run on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

2.7 Weekend Services

Increased services on weekends were also a strong theme in responses. Respondents noted that the current services start and finish outside of retail hours and therefore do not cater for workers or the general public. The general theme was that the weekend services should be roughly the same schedule as the weekday services.

2.8 Massey University Services

Massey services currently operate on three timetables – semester, non-semester and summer semester. The summer and non-semester timetables are reduced versions of the semester schedule. The Massey services cover the main Turitea campus, the Hokowhitu campus and also provide coverage of the Summerhill/IPC area.

A number of respondents from the Summerhill area noted that the timetable reduces over the university breaks. This can lead to confusion over which services are running and means that passengers who utilise the services but are not Massey staff or students may lose services during certain times of the year.

3. Local Travel Patterns

Nationally, travel data is collected via a number of methods, for example, census information and the New Zealand Household Travel survey undertaken by the Ministry of Transport.

No formal research has been undertaken on specific travel patterns within the city; however Palmerston North is a monocentric city with a small number of outlying traffic generators such as the hospital and Massey University. Analysis of bus usage, combined with recent journey to work census data suggests that demand for the city centre, hospital and Massey University is evenly spread from throughout the city. This is discussed in grater detail below.

3.1 2013 Census Data

The census information shows the main means of travel to work a person aged 15 years and over used to travel the longest distance to their place of employment on census day (for example, by bicycle, bus, walking, or jogging).

As this data relates to the main means of travel on census day, it does not necessarily indicate a person's usual mode of travel to work and it does not indicate the main means of travel to work for people who did not go to work on census day. In 2013, 10.8% of those who answered the question indicated that they did not go to work on census day. Travel to work information is also unlikely to capture the travel patterns of secondary and tertiary students who are travelling to study, rather than work on census day. Total trips by these users accounted for 54% of total patronage on the Palmerston North bus services in 2012-13. Journey to work information shows trends in mode share over time. 2006 census data for Palmerston North shows that 516 (1.4%) of people used public transport as the main means of travel to work, this increased to 609 (1.7%) in 2013. The table below shows a comparison of journeys to work by public bus across the country. Area Unit 2001 2006 2013 2013 Census Census Census Census population Palmerston North City 300 516 609 80,082 Whangarei District 126 144 186 76,995 Hamilton City 798 1,125 1,521 141,612 Tauranga City 147 372 687 114,789 Rotorua District 177 297 393 65,280 Hastings District 120 105 132 73,245 Napier City 144 144 225 57,240 New Plymouth District 147 120 162 74,184 Dunedin City 1,548 1,569 1,464 120,246 Invercargill City 201 180 156 51,696

Table One: Census journey to work data. Source: Statistics NZ

Palmerston North compares quite favourably with other cities that are much bigger and have larger public transport networks, for example Tauranga. It should be noted that areas which have made significant investment in bus networks over recent years, such as Hamilton, have seen significant growth in the journeys to work by public bus.

Additional census data obtained by Palmerston North City Council provides detail of journey to place of work by area unit and is shown in the table below. The highlighted figures indicate the top three destinations for those who travelled to work by public bus, as well as for the total number of people who went to work on census day:

Passenger Drove a Drove a Did Not in a Car, Motor Private Company Total Worked at Go to Truck, Public Cycle or Walked or Area unit Car, Car, Train Bicycle Other people Home Work Van or Bus Power Jogged Truck or Truck or stated Today Company Cycle Van Van Bus

Massey University 51 216 1,977 48 126 228 3 48 405 132 21 3,255 Palmerston North Central 96 1,290 5,697 975 480 225 12 99 360 882 69 10,179 Palmerston North Hospital 54 513 2,031 294 123 30 0 45 156 309 15 3,570 Kelvin Grove 108 183 1,026 291 84 18 0 30 69 72 15 1,896 Milson 105 210 1,380 366 84 15 0 39 75 60 12 2,349 Papaeoia 57 183 1,011 207 54 15 0 12 51 111 6 1,704 Roslyn 111 210 1,473 504 96 12 0 27 102 111 12 2,655 Hokowhitu Lagoon 78 60 240 27 21 12 0 3 12 27 3 477 West End 78 168 639 63 27 9 3 9 48 99 12 1,152 Turitea 120 105 393 96 30 9 0 30 24 33 6 849 Cloverlea 36 117 942 357 48 6 0 33 63 54 9 1,668 Takaro 69 168 573 126 36 6 0 15 42 90 15 1,137 Hokowhitu West 117 63 252 48 12 6 0 0 21 39 6 564 Aokautere 99 63 258 39 15 6 0 3 18 18 3 519 Awapuni South 81 42 204 30 21 6 0 6 18 30 6 435 Terrace End 54 57 165 36 3 6 0 0 3 18 3 348 Awapuni North 42 27 132 24 9 3 0 0 9 21 3 264 Awapuni West 42 30 111 30 9 3 0 3 6 3 3 243 Stoney Creek 42 15 75 51 6 3 0 9 3 12 3 219 Linton Military Camp 18 90 957 57 69 0 3 27 102 279 36 1,638 Longburn 30 78 360 27 15 0 0 12 21 27 0 579 Hokowhitu East 129 39 213 99 6 0 0 3 18 24 3 537

Highbury 21 33 282 48 18 0 0 6 15 36 9 471 Ashhurst 66 48 174 69 12 0 0 3 12 21 3 402 Whakarongo 57 24 132 51 12 0 0 0 3 9 0 291 Westbrook 54 39 120 39 3 0 0 0 6 12 0 276 Kairanga 66 21 96 33 3 0 0 3 3 6 3 237 Total 1,881 4,092 20,913 4,035 1,422 618 21 465 1,665 2,535 276 37,914 Percent of total people stated 5.0% 10.8% 55.2% 10.6% 3.8% 1.6% 0.1% 1.2% 4.4% 6.7% 0.7%

Table Two: 2013 Census, main means of travel to work, for workplace address, for the employed census usually resident population count aged 15 years and over. Source: Statistics NZ

3.2 The New Zealand Household Travel Survey The New Zealand Household Travel Survey has been conducted by the Ministry of Transport since 2003. Each year, people in 4,600 households throughout New Zealand are invited to participate in the survey by recording all their travel over a two-day period. Each person in the household is then interviewed about their travel and is also asked about other travel-related information. The survey was designed to produce regional results on a four-year moving average basis. In 2008 the survey was expanded which means that three- yearly results can be produced for almost all regions. For the survey, each member of the selected households is asked to keep a record of all travel on two specified travel days. Each member is then interviewed in person about their travel by trained survey interviewers. No specific data is available for Palmerston North. Information is provided only at a regional level for areas outside the main urban areas3.

3.3 Bus Ticketing System Analysis Regional councils and operators also collect data on local journeys and travel patterns. For this review, passenger data collected from bus on-board ticketing systems has been used to gauge demand for certain areas of the city.

The table below shows patronage by route for the period 1 July 2011 – 28 February 2014: Percent total Percent urban Urban Routes patronage (Massey patronage & urban) 1 Awapuni / 2 Rugby 18.2% 9.0% 3 Highbury / 4 Takaro 18.1% 9.0% 5 Cloverlea / 6 Milson 20.9% 10.4% 7 Rhodes / 8 Roslyn 16.8% 8.3% 9 Rangiora / 10 Brightwater 16.8% 8.3% 31 Fernlea / 32 Heights 9.1% 4.5% Percent total Percent Massey Massey routes patronage (Massey patronage & urban) 12 Massey direct 32.4% 16.3% 12A Massey via Albert Street 12.9% 6.5% 12B Massey via College 14.7% 7.4% Street 12C Massey via Chelwood 7.7% 3.9% Street 14 Massey via 10.7% 5.4% Summerhill/IPC 15 Massey via Hokowhitu 21.7% 10.9% Campus Table Three: Palmerston North Urban Services patronage summary by route Note: Urban totals include the “reverse loop” e.g. 1. Awapuni / 2. Rugby and 2. Rugby / 1. Awapuni. Massey totals include journeys to and from Massey.

3 For the purposes of the Travel Surveys, the main urban areas are Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin.

Monitoring and anecdotal evidence from city bus drivers is that a number of passengers utilise non-direct services to access Massey when a route 12 direct service could be used or timings are not convenient. For example, monitoring in early 2013 of usage of route 15 after courses were shifted from the Hokowhitu Campus to the Turitea Campus showed that the majority of passengers did not use the service to access Hokowhitu. The primary destination was the Turitea campus, with only one or two (and in many cases, none) passengers boarding/alighting at Hokowhitu.

3.3.1 Transfers Passengers utilising Palmerston North bus services are permitted to transfer between routes free of charge, provided the transfer is made within one hour of purchasing the original ticket. In 2012-13, over 46,000 transfer trips were recorded which equates to 3.6% of all trips. However, passengers travelling on a monthly pass or Massey/UCOL cards are not captured within this transfer total as a transfer ticket is not required – they simply swipe/present their card for the each trip taken. Analysis of trips shows that in 2012-13, 11.8% of passengers recorded on the urban services travelled using a Massey smartcard, the inference being that they transferred from an urban route to a Massey route to complete their journey. The current ticketing system is not sophisticated enough to provide information on what routes passengers are transferring to/from. The only information available is the number of transfer tickets recorded, broken down by passenger type (e.g. child, adult, tertiary student). A national ticketing solution for regional councils outside the major urban areas of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch is currently under investigation and if implemented, should allow more detailed analysis of individual travel patterns.

3.4 Comparisons with other Networks To provide some national context, a comparison of usage and cost of the Palmerston North services with other regional services has been made. Net cost of Cost per Population Patronage service, ex Area passenger, (2013 census) (2012-13) GST ex GST ($) (2012-13) Palmerston 80,082 1,261,551 $2,084,348 $1.65 North City New Plymouth 74,184 548,919 $1,322,281 $2.41 District Hamilton City 141,612 4,582,662 Detailed cost information on individual services not available. Tauranga City 114,789 1,809,599 $5,524,672 $3.05 Rotorua District 65,280 957,860 $2,292,450 $2.39 Napier/Hastings4 130,485 761,392 $2,702,740 $3.55 Table Four: Cost per passenger and cost comparison of other networks

4 Bus services in Napier and Hastings are provided under one contact, therefore the population figures for Napier City and Hastings District have been combined.

4. Description of Options Considered

Three options have been developed in response to the community feedback gathered:

 Option 1 “Status Quo Plus”: the current network with enhanced frequency and hours of operation;  Option 2 “Lollipop”: a new network structure comprised of more direct one way routes with a loop at the outer point, a city “orbiter” route, a Hospital – City – Massey (HCM) route, a Ashhurst – City and a Longburn – City service;  Option 3 “Grid”: a new network structure composed of intersecting north- south and east-west lines.

4.1 Assumptions

A number of assumptions have been made in developing the options:

4.1.1 Bus travel time

According to international best practice, bus travel time has been calculated consistently as 1.3 times car travel time to allow for the slightly slower speeds of buses and boarding and alighting time.

4.1.2 Standard bus size

A standard bus size has been used in all calculations. Some services such as the Massey Shuttle may only require a small bus and so some minor savings could be made when actual tendering occurs.

4.1.3 Transfers

Under the current system, passengers are able to transfer between services free of charge within one hour of purchasing the original ticket. The free transfer system remains in place under all options.

4.2 Current Services

The current services are divided into two distinct timetables – urban and Massey. The urban areas of the city are serviced by six loops operating on a pulse timetable (i.e. services are scheduled to arrive and depart at the same time). The University is serviced by five routes which either travel directly to the Turitea Campus, or via areas of student accommodation throughout the city before continuing on to the Turitea Campus.

The urban routes operate to a 20 minute frequency during peak periods and 40 minute frequency during off peak times. The Fernlea Heights service operates to a 40 minutes frequency all day. Hours of operation are 6.40am to 6pm weekdays, with two later services on Friday evenings.

Weekend services are limited, with six services per urban route per Saturday and three to four per route on Sunday.

Services to Massey University operate to a different schedule; services are timed to coincide with lecture and staff start/finish times. The timetable also reduces during semester breaks and during the summer semester. Hours of operation are 7.15am to 9.30pm weekdays. Saturday services operate from 8.40am to 4.20pm (13 services per day) and Sunday services operate 9am to 4.20pm (seven services per day).

4.3 Option One (Status Quo Plus)

This option sees no change to the current structure of services and routes and instead focuses on improvements to frequency and operating hours.

Network operating hours are:

 Peak services are from 6.20am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm Monday to Friday;  Off-peak services are from 9am to 3pm and 6pm to 7.40pm Monday to Friday;  Late night services operate Thursday, Friday and Saturday 8pm to 11pm (hourly frequency);  Weekend services operate 8am to 6.00pm

The proposed frequency under option one is doubling of the current services from every 20 minutes to every 10 minutes at peak times. Off-peak services would increase to 20 minutes and weekend services would increase to every 40 minutes (Saturday) and 60 minutes (Sunday).

All services to Massey University would remain unchanged under option one.

Peak Off-peak Weekend Late Route frequency frequency frequency night Urban 10 minute 20 minutes Saturday – 40 8pm – minute 11pm, Sunday – 60 Thursday minute – Saturday (60 minute frequency) Massey No change No change No change No change

Table Five: Option One summary

4.4 Option Two (includes Lollipop, Orbiter, Hospital-City-Massey, Massey Shuttle, Ashhurst-Longburn network)

This option is a complete review of the network with all new services and route structure, as well as expansion of service hours as per option one.

The new routes introduced under this option are:

 Thirteen simple direct routes radiating from the city centre with two-way core and a one way “loop” at the outer point of each route (“lollipop” routes);  An outer city “orbiter” loop which covers major traffic generators such as local high schools and intermediates, the Airport, Hospital and Massey University;  A route running from Palmerston North Hospital to Massey University via the city centre which forms the core of services to Massey University (HCM route), this is supported by additional services from the city centre to Massey University at peak times to cater for increased demand;  A Massey shuttle loop service to support the base Massey University services. This runs from the city centre to the Massey Turitea Campus via the Hokowhitu Campus and the International Pacific College;  A direct route from Ashhurst to the city centre;  A direct route from Longburn to the city centre.

Detailed maps of each option are provided in Appendix 1.

4.4.1 Network operating hours

 Lollipop peak services are from 6.20am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm Monday to Friday;  Lollipop off-peak services are from 9am to 3pm and 6pm to 7.40pm Monday to Friday;  Lollipop weekend services operate 8am to 6.00pm  The orbiter route operates 6.20am to 7.40pm weekdays and 8am to 6pm weekends;  The HCM route operates from 6.30am to 9.40pm;  Late night services operate on the lollipop and orbiter routes on Thursday, Friday and Saturday 8pm to 11pm (hourly frequency);  Services from Ashhurst and Longburn operate between 7.20am and 5.40pm (Ashhurst) and 8.00am and 4.10pm (Longburn)5.

4.4.2 Frequency

Two options for frequency for the lollipop routes have been developed:

 Option 2A: Lollipop routes would operate every 10 minutes at peak, 20 minutes at off-peak, every 40 minutes on Saturday and 60 minutes on Sunday.  Option 2B: Lollipop routes would operate every 20 minutes at peak, 40 minutes at off-peak and every 60 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.

The orbiter route operates with buses running in each direction (clockwise and anticlockwise) at a frequency of 20 minutes during the off-peak weekday period, with peak frequency increasing to 15 minutes. Weekend services operate every 30 minutes.

5 Services to and from Longburn are supported by the Levin to Palmerston North commuter service which departs Longburn for the city at 7.25am and returns from Palmerston North at 5.20pm.

The HCM route would operate at a frequency of 15 minutes all day during weekdays and 30 minutes during weekends. To cater for increased demand to Massey during peak times, additional services between the city centre and Massey are provided, taking the overall peak Massey service frequency to five minutes. Services from Ashhurst and Longburn operate to the timetable shown below:

Depart Ashhurst Arrive Main Depart Main Arrive Ashhurst Street Street 7.20am 7.40am 8.20am 8.45am 9.10am 9.30am 10.55am 11.10am 11.10am 11.30am 12.55pm 1.10pm 1.10pm 1.30pm 2.55pm 3.10pm 3.10pm 3.35pm 4.10pm 4.25pm 4.25pm 4.45pm 5.05pm 5.25pm 5.25pm 5.40pm 5.40pm 5.55pm

*Highlighted services include a diversion through the Fernlea Avenue area to Whakarongo School.

Depart Main Arrive Longburn Depart Arrive Main Street Longburn Street 7.25am 7.35am 7.45am 8.00am 8.00am 8.20am 9.35am 9.50am 9.50am 10.10am 11.35am 11.50am 11.50am 12.10pm 1.35pm 1.50pm 1.50pm 2.10pm 3.35pm 3.50pm 3.50pm 4.10pm 5.25pm 5.35pm

*Highlighted services are the Levin to Palmerston North commuter service which currently stops in Longburn if required.

The table below summarises option two.

Route Peak Off-peak Weekend Late night frequency frequency frequency Lollipop 2A: 10 2A: 20 minute 2A: Saturday 8pm – 11pm, minute 2B: 40 minute 40 minute, Thursday – 2B: 20 Sunday 60 Saturday (60 minute minutes. minute 2B: Saturday frequency) and Sunday 60 minute Hospital- 15 minute 15 minute 30 minute - City- (City- Massey Massey: 5 (HCM) minute) Orbiter 15 minute 20 minute 30 minute - Massey 30 minute 60 minute - - shuttle Ashhurst Varied 120 minute - - – City Longburn Varied 120 minute - - – City Table Six: Option Two summary

4.5 Option Three (Grid)

This option provides a further alternative approach to the current network through provision of a number of intersecting north-south and east-west routes. Most passengers will be required to transfer to get from one location to another. Two high frequency lines form the core of this network, one north-south and one east-west, supported by 18 other linear routes. As this option provides comprehensive coverage of the city, additional routes such as the orbiter or Hospital-City-Massey line which are proposed in option two are not required under this scenario. However, the Ashhurst to city and Longburn to city routes proposed under option two have also been included in option three as these two areas were subject of a number of public submissions in phase one. Operating hours are:  Peak services are from 6.20am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm Monday to Friday;  Off-peak services are from 9am to 3pm and 6pm to 7.40pm Monday to Friday;  Late night services operate Thursday, Friday and Saturday 8pm to 11pm;  Weekend services operate 8am to 6.00pm.  Services from Ashhurst and Longburn operate between 7.20am and 5.40pm (Ashhurst) and 8.00am and 4.10pm (Longburn)6.

6 Services to and from Longburn are supported by the Levin to Palmerston North commuter service which departs Longburn for the city at 7.25am and returns from Palmerston North at 5.20pm.

Two frequency options have been developed:

 Option 3A - High frequency routes operate every five minutes all weekdays and 10 minutes on weekends. All other routes operate every 15 minutes all weekdays and 20 minutes during weekends. Late night Thursday, Friday and Saturday services operate every 10 minutes (high frequency) and 20 minutes (other routes).

 Option 3B - High frequency routes operate every five minutes all weekdays and 10 minutes on weekends. All other routes operate every 10 minutes all weekdays and 15 minutes during weekends. Late night Thursday, Friday and Saturday services operate every 10 minutes (high frequency) and 15 minutes (other routes).

Services from Ashhurst and Longburn operate to the timetable shown below:

Depart Arrive Main Depart Main Arrive Ashhurst Ashhurst Street Street 7.20am 7.40am 8.20am 8.45am 9.10am 9.30am 10.55am 11.10am 11.10am 11.30am 12.55pm 1.10pm 1.10pm 1.30pm 2.55pm 3.10pm 3.10pm 3.35pm 4.10pm 4.25pm 4.25pm 4.45pm 5.05pm 5.25pm 5.25pm 5.40pm 5.40pm 5.55pm

*Highlighted services include a diversion through the Fernlea Avenue area to Whakarongo School.

Depart Main Arrive Longburn Depart Arrive Main Street Longburn Street 7.25am 7.35am 7.45am 8.00am 8.00am 8.20am 9.35am 9.50am 9.50am 10.10am 11.35am 11.50am 11.50am 12.10pm 1.35pm 1.50pm 1.50pm 2.10pm 3.35pm 3.50pm 3.50pm 4.10pm 5.25pm 5.35pm

*Highlighted services are the Levin to Palmerston North commuter service which currently stops in Longburn if required.

The table below summarises option three.

Option Route Peak Off-peak Weekend Late night frequency frequency frequency High 5 minute 5 minute 10 minute 8pm – 11pm, frequency Thursday – Saturday (10 minute frequency) Other 15 minute 15 minute 20 minute 8pm – 11pm, routes Thursday – 3A Saturday (20 minute frequency) Ashhurst – Varied 120 - - City minute Longburn Varied 120 - - – City minute High 5 minute 10 minute 10 minute 8pm – 11pm, frequency Thursday – Saturday (10 minute frequency) Other routes 10 minute 15 minute 15 minute 8pm – 11pm, Thursday – 3B Saturday (15 minute frequency) Ashhurst – Varied 120 minute - - City Longburn – Varied 120 minute - - City Table Seven: Option Three summary

5. Assessment of Options

5.1 Option One

Option One focuses on addressing public concerns around frequency and service hours. Increasing the frequency to 10 minutes during peak times and 20 minutes during the off-peak will provide much greater travel choice for passengers and reduce the need for potentially long waits during the off- peak. Weekday service hours are extended to cater for later work, retail and study hours.

Increased weekend service hours and frequency are proposed to cater for the weekend retail sector, both customers and staff. The introduction of hourly services between 8pm and 11pm Thursday to Saturday responds to feedback requesting services for evening movies, shows and events and could be expanded (either to other nights, or to later in the evening) once demand patterns have been established.

Option One aligns with the service changes proposed in the Horizons Regional Council Long-term Plan 2012-22, which were:

 Extending service hours from 6pm to 7.30pm;  Extension of Saturday service hours from 8.20am to 5pm, with more frequent services;  Late night services on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to 11pm;

Implementation of these improvements was conditional on receiving New Zealand Transport Agency funding (currently Horizons receives 50% funding support), however the funding application was not successful and Council resolved not to proceed with service changes.

This option sees no change to the current routes and does not change the current alternating urban loop system which has always been the subject of public confusion particularly for new users, or those not familiar with the city. Travel time comparisons with private vehicle are not favourable under this option, due to the circuitous urban route structure.

No new routes are proposed under this option so the issues raised in feedback about areas of the city which lack coverage (such as the Summerhill area, Longburn and Ashhurst) are not addressed.

5.1.1 National examples

This type of loop system where services alternate direction is fairly uncommon throughout New Zealand. Some areas such as Timaru previously operated one way loop services although services did not alternate direction as Palmerston North services do. Feedback received during a network review of Timaru services in 2011 indicated that passengers found journey time on the one-way loops to be too long and a simpler route structure which involved straightening out the routes to make them more direct was implemented in July 2013.

Figure One: Timaru bus network map: Source http://metroinfo.co.nz/map/?map=TIM

5.2 Option Two

5.2.1 General

This option addresses the frequency and service hours issue and also looks at improving the structure and coverage of the network through altering the current urban routes and introducing several new ones. The current urban routes are essentially split into smaller, more direct routes which commence in the city centre and travel to an outer point in the suburbs, complete a small “loop” and return back to the city centre along the same core route.

Due to the changes to the Massey services and the introduction of new routes such as the orbiter and Hospital-City-Massey line, the requirement to interchange some journeys becomes more prevalent. The primary interchange focus under option two will remain at the current urban services terminal in Main Street. Other important interchange locations will be along Fitzherbert Avenue and Ruahine Street where the urban routes connect with the orbiter and HCM.

5.2.2 Lollipops

As part of the peer review process, TDG have undertaken analysis of the proposed routes via a GIS programme to assess population coverage effectiveness. As a result, a number of route changes to the proposed lollipop options have been suggested to provider better coverage of the city or minimise the size of the one way loop at the end of each route. A number of these changes have been incorporated into the routes and individual route maps are shown in Appendix 3.

Some of the proposed routes have a longer one way loop which could result in some slightly longer journeys for passengers as experienced on the current network. Where possible, loops have been kept to a minimum however, in some areas shortening the loop is not feasible as either key destinations such as local shopping centres or schools would not be covered, or the alternative local roads are either narrow or current usage makes them unsuitable for bus access.

This option requires a significant increase in the number of peak buses required compared to the current system. Space in the urban services terminal facility in Main Street is currently limited and therefore the timetable would need to be offset, at least initially, rather than pulsing in the city centre. In other words, departure and arrival times would need to be staggered, rather than all services arriving and departing at the same time. Palmerston North City Council have commenced a project to examine bus terminal requirements for the city into the future. This is currently on hold until the outcome of this bus review are known.

5.2.3 Transfers

The lollipop routes would still terminate or pass through the city centre, meaning that passengers who wish to make a cross-town journey which is not catered for by the orbiter would need to transfer in town, as is current practice. Free transfers would remain in place under all options and the frequency of services under Option 2A is such that wait times for transfers would be minimal.

The scale of transfers required is much less under Option Two than for Option Three (grid) which relies heavily on transfers between services. It is expected however that a number of transfers will be made to the HCM route, particularly for access to Massey during the peak periods. The frequency of the HCM is such that wait times for transferring passengers will be minimal (five minute peak frequency (CBD to/from Massey), 15 minute off-peak (Hospital to/from Massey)).

Lollipop routes could be paired together and advertised as one single route which runs through the city centre to provide one single cross town route, rather than two distinct routes which start and terminate in the centre.

As noted in section 3.3, usage on the current urban routes is fairly evenly distributed, with services covering Palmerston North Hospital, Milson and Cloverlea slightly more heavily patronised than other urban routes. Information on transfer patterns is not available given the limitations of the current ticketing system, however some anecdotal evidence is available from the bus operators regarding travel patterns. For example, a number of school students attending Te Kura Kaupapa O Manawatu in Kelvin Grove transfer each day from the Highbury/Takaro service to the Rhodes/Roslyn service. Further analysis is required to determine optimal pairing of lollipop routes to reduce the need for transfer and it is suggested that feedback on pairings be sought during public consultation on the options. Should all lollipop routes start and terminate in the suburbs, rather than in the city centre, consideration needs to be given to facilities for driver breaks in the suburbs, such as toilets.

New infrastructure requirements for Option Two are not as significant as other options, as the new proposed routes are generally based on existing routes. However, some reassignment of existing shelters and stops may be necessary, as well as some new supporting infrastructure.

5.2.4 Orbiter

In their assessment of options, TDG note that based on their experience, connecting with the airport is unlikely to produce viable passenger numbers to justify the additional expense and suggest that this part of the orbiter route be introduced under trial. The proposed route would however provide additional coverage to parts of Milson which are not well covered by the lollipop options.

A base frequency of 20 minutes (buses operating in each direction) has been allocated, which could be run by six dedicated buses. TDG recommend that a further two buses for each direction be made available to allow for capacity demand, particularly for peak Massey journeys and also for time-keeping. With a total of 10 buses allocated to this route, a peak frequency of 15 minutes in each direction is possible.

5.2.5 Hospital – City – Massey (HCM)

This route serves as a cross town core route and provides good point-to- point linkage between key traffic generators. There is some overlap with the orbiter on the east side of the city which could lead to over capacity in that area, however alternative route options would either be too circuitous or would not cover the key traffic generators.

5.2.6 Ashhurst and Longburn

Original proposals for these areas resulted in a route that ran directly from Ashhurst to Longburn, via the city centre at equal frequencies. 2013 census data shows the usually resident populations of 2,778 (Ashhurst) and 648 (Longburn), and given the population differences, the Longburn side would be unlikely to support the same kind of frequency and timetable that the Ashhurst side could.

TDG has recommended that the routes be de-coupled into two distinct routes (Ashhurst to city centre and Longburn to city centre) to allow flexibility in scheduling and to ensure clarity of the services advertised i.e. that not all services run the full length from Ashhurst to Longburn. A revised timetable has been developed on this basis, which would be operated by one bus to minimise costs.

As demand for these new services is untested, de-coupling the routes will allow better flexibility so that times can be adjusted as necessary and services added/removed as required. Weekend services could be investigated once demand has been established.

5.2.7 Massey shuttle

Changes to usage at the Massey University Hokowhitu Campus in 2013 mean now that most teaching is undertaken at the Turitea Campus. However, there are still approximately 300 staff and international English language students based at the Hokowhitu Campus.

Horizons and Massey monitored usage of the bus services to the Hokowhitu Campus following the changes and a reduced schedule was implemented at the start of the 2014 academic year. This revised schedule is based on retention of peak services with some off-peak services around mid-day. This timetable is reflected in the new proposed Massey shuttle.

A new lollipop route for the Summerhill area is proposed to address concerns of residents in the area over lack of services and reduction of services over Massey University breaks. This new service would run independently of any Massey services. However, there are a number of passengers who utilise the current service to get from the Summerhill area to the Turitea campus, without being required to travel to the city centre then double back, particularly during peak periods. The new lollipop route would not provide passengers with this option.

To combat this, a Massey shuttle route is proposed which connects the city, Hokowhitu Campus, the International Pacific College (IPC) at Summerhill and the Turitea Campus. Expected usage of this service would be low outside of peak times (proposed 30 minutes frequency); therefore an off- peak hourly frequency is proposed.

5.2.8 Effect on Massey

A risk with option two is that the current Massey-specific services will be replaced with services that require passengers who previously had a direct service to transfer to the orbiter or HCM service. The presence of two services routed via Massey will reduce the impact of this issue but the orbiter may require additional targeted capacity increases at peak times. In addition, during Massey non-semester time, the orbiter will be running a significant amount of kilometres to and from Massey with many fewer passengers.

Additional services have been added to the HCM route during peak time to provide a more frequent service from the city centre to Massey. The overall effect is a service every five minutes from the CBD between 7am – 9am and 3pm – 6pm to minimise wait time for transferring passengers.

5.2.9 National examples

Services in New Plymouth and Tauranga have a similar network structure to the proposed lollipop services. Routes

Figure Two: Tauranga bus services map. Source www.baybus.co.nz

Figure Three: New Plymouth bus services network map. Source Taranaki Regional Council

5.3 Option Three

5.3.1 General

This option provides the most significant change from the current network by dividing services into linear north-south and east-west intersecting routes. This option provides a consistent all-day frequency for most lines, which are supported to by two core high-frequency lines bisecting the city.

Due to the high level of coverage of the city provided under this option, additional routes such as the orbiter are not required.

5.3.2 Transfers and Frequency

Option Three relies heavily on transfers between services for day-to-day journeys with many passengers needing to transfer. The number of transfers overall under this option will be much greater than current and this could result in greater loading time at more stops and sufficient time in the schedule needs to be allocated to ensure that the timetable is not compromised.

In calculating travel time by public transport, passenger wait time is generally considered to be half the frequency of the service. In other words, if a service runs at a 20 minute frequency, passenger wait time is calculated at 10 minutes, 10 minute frequency services result in wait time of five minutes.

As grid networks rely on a high level of transfer and it is not possible to “pulse” or coordinate every connection, the frequency must also be sufficiently high (ideally five to ten minutes but no less than every 15 minutes) to minimise travel times and a provide competitive alternative to private vehicle use.

An alternative frequency option for the grid network was considered (high frequency routes every 10 minutes all day and normal routes every 20 minutes) but this option was not considered a feasible alternative due to the lower frequency and increased wait times.

5.3.3 Effect on Massey

A significant effect of this option is the impact of the removal of most of the direct services to Massey. To be effective, the high frequency lines will need to operate at least every five minutes and additional capacity is recommended at times just prior to lectures commencing and finishing.

TDG note that with a high degree of transfer required to access Massey, this network comes at a risk of reducing the number of students using public transport to get to and from the university, although the effects of the free Unlimited Access Scheme for staff and students could counter-act the perceived negative effect of transfers.

5.3.4 Operation and Infrastructure Requirements

While infrastructure requirements are not a key focus of the review, the Terms of Reference note that any major changes to the service structure could result in the requirement for significant additional supporting infrastructure and therefore the infrastructural requirements of this option should be noted.

TDG have estimated at least 62 route intersection points which would require high quality infrastructure including shelter, timetable information (possibly real-time information displays) and network maps. Each crossing point is likely to require four sets of shelters (one for each direction of travel), totalling 2487 shelters. As a comparison, currently there are approximately 75 shelters throughout the city. In addition, each interchange point will require safe road crossing points to be established or confirmed.

Investment in infrastructure could be prioritised and staged accordingly, however a significant investment would still be required.

5.3.5 National examples

Auckland Transport has recently reviewed its passenger transport network and is proposing significant changes to the network, with implementation in some areas starting in 2015. The revised network will provide more frequent services and a streamlined, better connected network. It is based on the grid principles operating in many North American and European cities.

The revised network moves away from connecting many locations with many other locations at low frequencies (left image in the diagram) and instead provides fewer routes at higher frequencies with transfer required at points where routes intersect (right image in diagram).

Figure Four: Auckland revised network structure. Source: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/

7 Purchase and installation of new shelters currently costs approximately $6,500 per unit. This figure excludes on-going maintenance costs.

The cost of operating the new network is expected to be close to cost neutral as existing resources are used more efficiently; however there will be costs associated with new infrastructure and interchange point as well as upgrading existing facilities.

6. Pricing comparisons

All costs have been prepared by TDG, using standard per bus and per kilometre rates and are GST exclusive. The number of peak buses required under each option has been calculated using vehicle travel time multiplied by 1.3 to allow for slower operational speeds and passenger loading.

The costs shown below are the approximate gross annual cost (i.e. excluding fare revenue) and a range has been used. Final costs received during tender processes will depend on a number of factors such as level of competition for the contract and how efficiently vehicles and resources are used throughout service. Estimates have been provided for each component of options. Tendering components as a package rather than as discrete services may result in better efficiencies which can impact on cost.

An estimate of possible fare revenue for each option has been undertaken using an accepted rule of thumb for transport service planning which states that for every 100% increase in service frequency, patronage will increase by 30% to 80%, depending on a number of variables such as the proportion of working age adults using the service, whether the service frequency was low initially and the amount of advertising and promotion undertaken.

As most of the options under discussion have completely new route structures and timetables, it is not possible to calculate a simple rate of frequency increase. Therefore, the number of annual in-service kilometres provided under each option has been used as a proxy for this. A low and a medium percentage increase in patronage (30% and 60% for every 100% increase in in-service kilometres) were selected to provide an estimated revenue range8. In addition, a 10% and 20% across the board fare increase has been assumed for all options to provide high revenue and low revenue estimates. Note these figures do not include the contributions made by Massey University and UCOL towards the cost of services in Palmerston North, as these are negotiated separately as lump sum amounts.

8 Improvements made to the Palmerston North bus service in 2010 increased frequency by 27% overall, and patronage increased by 34% in the following year.

Option Costs (excluding GST) Frequency assumptions and notes CURRENT SERVICES Annual kilometres 895,794 PEAK BUSES Urban: 11; Massey: 11; Total: 22

Peak – 20 minutes; Urban $1,600,000 Off-peak – 40 minute

Frequency varies, timetable has Massey $1,100,000 been developed to cater for lecture/staff start and finish times Gross cost is the contract cost of Total annual gross cost $2,700,000 providing the service before fare revenue is deducted9.

Fare revenue estimate $790,000 2012-13 total revenue collected.

Net cost = the total cost to Total annual net cost $1,910,000 ratepayers OPTION 1 Annual kilometres 1,545,675 PEAK BUSES Urban: 22; Massey: 11; Total: 33

Peak - 10 minutes; Off-peak - 20 minutes; Current urban plus $3,300,000 Saturday - 40 minutes; Sunday - 60 minutes.

Massey $1,100,000 No change from current Total annual gross cost $4,500,000 - $4,800,000 Fare revenue estimate Based on a 20% fare increase & $1,360,000 (high) 60% elasticity Fare revenue estimate Based on 10% fare increase & 30% $1,058,000 (low) elasticity Upper gross cost estimates have Total annual net cost $3,440,000 - $3,742,000 been used OPTION 2A Annual kilometres 3,523,631 Peak buses: Lollipop: 41; orbiter: 10; Massey shuttle: 2; HCM: 8; Ashhurst/Longburn to city: 1; Total: 62 Peak - 10 minutes; Off-peak - 20 minutes; Lollipop $8,400,000 Saturday - 40 minutes; Sunday - 60 minutes.

9 The gross contract cost excludes inflationary payments made to operators and any overload services provided throughout the year. The actual gross cost for Palmerston North in 2012-13 was $2,868,649 which resulted in a net cost of $2,084,348

Peak - 15 minutes; Off-peak - 20 minutes; Orbiter $2,200,000 Weekend - 30 minutes; Late night - 60 minutes. Peak – 30 minute; Off-peak – 60 minutes; Massey shuttle $150,000 No weekend service, operates semester time only.

City to Massey - peak 5 minutes; Hospital to Massey - 15 minutes all Hospital – City - Massey $730,000 day; Weekend - 30 minutes (Hospital to Massey)

Ashhurst to City, Longburn Varied peak and off-peak services; $140,000 to City No weekend services. Upper gross cost estimates have Total annual gross cost $10,800,000 - $11,600,000 been used Fare revenue estimate Based on a 20% fare increase & $2,616,000 (high) 60% elasticity Fare revenue estimate Based on 10% fare increase & 30% $1,633,000 (low) elasticity Total annual net cost $8,984,000 - $9,967,000

Option 2B Annual kilometres 2,442,942 Peak buses: Lollipop: 25; orbiter: 10; Massey shuttle: 2; HCM: 8; Ashhurst/Longburn to city: 1; Total: 46

Peak - 20 minutes; Off-peak - 40 minutes; Lollipop $ 3,300,000 Saturday - 40 minutes; Sunday - 60 minutes.

Peak - 15 minutes; Off-peak - 20 minutes; Orbiter $2,200,000 Weekend - 30 minutes; Late night - 60 minutes.

Peak – 30 minute; Off-peak – 60 minutes; Massey shuttle $150,000 No weekend service, operates semester time only.

City to Massey - peak 5 minutes; Hospital to Massey - 15 minutes all Hospital – City - Massey $730,000 day; Weekend - 30 minutes (Hospital to Massey)

Ashhurst to City, Longburn Varied peak and off peak services; $140,000 to City No weekend services. Total annual gross cost $6,500,000 - $7,500,000

Fare revenue estimate Based on a 20% fare increase & $1,930,000 (high) 60% elasticity Fare revenue estimate Based on 10% fare increase & 30% $1,319,000 (low) elasticity Upper gross cost estimates have Total annual net cost $5,570,000 - $6,181,000 been used OPTION 3A Annual kilometres 6,401,824 Peak buses: Grid: 64; Ashhurst/Longburn to city: 1; Total: 65

High frequency - 5 minutes; Other routes - 15 minutes; Weekend high frequency - 10 minutes; Grid $13,300,000 - $15,300,000 Weekend other routes - 20 minutes;

Late night high frequency - 10 minutes; Other routes – 20 minutes. Ashhurst to City, Longburn Varied peak and off-peak services; $140,000 to City No weekend services. Total annual gross cost $13,500,000 - $15,500,000 Fare revenue estimate Based on a 20% fare increase & $4,444,000 (high) 60% elasticity Fare revenue estimate Based on 10% fare increase & 30% $1,863,000 (low) elasticity Upper gross cost estimates have Total annual net cost $11,056,000 - $13,637,000 been used OPTION 3B Annual kilometres 8,192,279 Peak buses: Grid: 84; Ashhurst/Longburn to city: 1; Total: 85 High frequency - 5 minutes; Other routes - 10 minutes; Weekend high frequency - 10 minutes; Grid $16,840,000 - $19,860,000 Weekend other routes - 15 minutes; Late night high frequency - 10 minutes; Other routes – 15 minutes. Ashhurst to City, Longburn Varied peak and off-peak services; $140,000 to City No weekend services. Total annual gross cost $17,000,000 - $20,000,000 Fare revenue estimate Based on a 20% fare increase & $5,581,000 (high) 60% elasticity Fare revenue estimate Based on 10% fare increase & 30% $2,384,000 (low) elasticity Upper gross cost estimates have Total annual net cost $14,419,000 - $17,616,000 been used Table Eight: Cost summary of options

7. Funding Options and Implementation

As noted in section 6, a number of assumptions have been made regarding future fare increases and patronage levels to help fund the options. For each option, a low revenue and high revenue scenario has been modelled, this is based on a 10% general fare increase and 40% elasticity (low revenue scenario) and a 20% general fare increase and 60% elasticity (high revenue scenario).

While cost alone is not a factor in recommending a preferred option and all options were developed before costs assessed, some consideration must be given to how improvements could be funded, including the potential impact on local rates. Modelling to assess the potential financial impact on Palmerston North urban ratepayers has also been undertaken and is shown in the tables below. It should be noted that implementation of any changes is subject to funding availability and Council’s Long-term Plan consultation processes.

The modelling has assumed continued Transport Agency funding support at 50%, however it should be noted that the Transport Agency is currently reviewing funding assistance rates for land transport activities and this may change. This is shown in Appendix 5.

The Transport Agency is bound by legislation to give effect to the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding (GPS) which sets out the government’s outcomes and priorities for the land transport sector. It does this by setting out how much money will be available for different activity classes (for example, public transport, local road maintenance, new infrastructure for state highways and road safety education) as well as what the government expects to be achieved from its investment. The current GPS has three priority focus areas:

 Economic growth and productivity;  Value for money; and  Road safety

For public transport activities, this means the new activities that are likely to receive national funding support are those where there is potential for a nationally significant contribution to economic growth and productivity or easing severe congestion in major urban areas.

The GPS is due to be updated and released in July 2015 and early advice received is that the focus will remain on the priority areas identified above. To assist local authorities with Long-term Plan development in the interim; the Transport Agency has released an “Early Planning and Investment Signals” document.

Section 4.5 of the investment signals document outlines the government focus for public transport services for the period 2015-18 and states that “The Transport Agency expects public transport services to be optimised within existing budgets. Our investment focus will be on services in congested major urban areas as well as maintaining and improving existing public transport services……Network reviews should identify efficiencies that can be reinvested in other public transport services that meet the investment criteria…”

The document also notes that there are substantial committed investments that will run over into 2015-18 and approximately 80% of the national funding available will be committed. The remaining 20% will be available for investment across all land transport activity classes and funding will be directed only to the highest priority activities to ensure that investment gives effect to the GPS.

There is therefore, a strong likelihood that any applications for national funding for service improvements in the region made over the 2015-18 period would be unsuccessful, unless there is a change in investment focus and the GPS as issued by government. Council could consider 100% funding of improvements (i.e. proceed with no additional Transport Agency funding beyond current levels) to progress changes, the impact of this is shown in Appendix 5.

Due to the increased costs associated with all options, there is a possibility that implementation would need to be staged over a number of years or delayed. Further detail on an implementation plan and possible timings of changes will be developed as part of Phase Three when the preferred option is clearer. It could be possible to stage options two and three to introduce some elements earlier than others, as shown in the table below.

STAGE ROUTE(S) COMMENT 1 Ashhurst to City/ These routes would operate Longburn to City independently of any other routes and could be used to supplement existing services. 2 Hospital-City- First stage in enhancing services to Massey, City- Massey. Would replace the current 12 OPTION Massey services to Massey. The current 12A, TWO 12B, 12C, 14 and 15 routes would need to be retained until the orbiter and lollipop services are in place. 3 Lollipops and orbiter All existing services would be replaced when the lollipops and orbiter are introduced. 1 Ashhurst to City/ These routes would operate Longburn to City independently of any other routes and could be used to supplement existing services. 2 High frequency route First stage in enhancing services to D (north-south) Massey. Would replace the current 12 OPTION services to Massey. The current 12A, THREE 12B, 12C, 14 and 15 routes would need to be retained until the remaining routes are in place. 3 All other routes All existing services would be replaced when the remaining routes are introduced.

Implementation of all options will be subject to Council’s Long-term Plan processes.

8. Public Transport Benefits

Improving public transport services has benefits to both new and existing passengers and also to road users, whose trip is made easier by a reduction in vehicles on the road.

Assigning a dollar value to these benefits is difficult. Some existing passengers will utilise services more often, others will commence using services as a result of changes, some trips may replace walking or cycling journeys and others will replace private vehicle trips. The benefit to each passenger and their reason(s) for utilising the services will be greatly varied.

8.1 Transport Service User Benefits

The Transport Agency produces an Economic Evaluation Manual for assessment of all land transport activities for national investment. In calculating the economic efficiency of improvements to existing public transport services10, the Transport Agency has calculated benefits to both the public transport user and the road user, for each additional boarding on public transport.

Transport service user benefits for an existing public transport service may include, but are not limited to:

 improved reliability;  reduced fare/price;  reduced journey time;  improvements in service frequency;  reduction in interchange time;  improvements in quality (i.e. comfort);  improvements in infrastructure and vehicle features

A dollar value is assigned to each of these benefits which is then added to the benefit cost calculation for the service, to determine whether the benefits outweigh the cost of making improvements.

If just the direct benefit to the public transport user is taken into consideration, the Transport Agency’s Economic Evaluation Manual assigns the following benefit values for each additional peak and off-peak boarding:

Public Transport User Benefits ($/additional passenger boarding, assuming an average trip length of 7.86 km) Urban area Peak Off-peak All except Auckland, $12.32 $8.20 Wellington , Christchurch

The average trip length in Palmerston North has been calculated at 5.1km, so an adjustment to these values is necessary. However this still indicates a significant value to the user and the community for each new public transport boarding.

10 Simplified procedures.

8.2 Vehicle Operating Costs

The direct financial saving to each passenger can also be estimated. A significant number of new passenger transport trips will replace a car journey, but others may replace a walking or cycling trip or may be induced by the improved frequency or convenience of the service. New peak period passengers are more likely to replace a car trip than off-peak.

The Automobile Association has calculated vehicle operating costs on a per kilometre basis of 64.9 cents11 for a compact vehicle12, however this based on ownership of a new vehicle over the first five years. Palmerston North City Council has adapted the Automobile Association‘s calculations for vehicle operating costs to Palmerston North conditions, taking into account the average age and composition of the local fleet. The council estimates that the average cost of running a vehicle in Palmerston North is $0.41 per kilometre.

The following table outlines the potential savings to bus passengers as a result of taking the bus instead of driving (or being driven) based on the PNCC figure of $0.41 per kilometre. The calculations assume that a) the bus trip is replacing a private vehicle trip, b) adults commute for 48 weeks of the year and c) children attend school for 40 weeks.

Cost of Adult GoCard Child GoCard Annual Annual Saving per Saving per Distance Kms driving @ fare, with 20% fare , with saving - saving - trip trip $0.41 per km increase 20% increase Adult Child Average trip length 5.1 $ 2.10 $ 2.40 -$ 0.30 $ 1.44 $ 0.66 -$ 142.42 $ 265.32 Milson to Massey University 8.8 $ 3.61 $ 2.40 $ 1.21 $ 1.44 $ 2.17 $ 579.84 $ 867.20 Maxwell's Line to PN Hospital 7.4 $ 3.03 $ 2.40 $ 0.63 $ 1.44 $ 1.59 $ 304.32 $ 637.60 Brooklyn Heights Drive to CBD 6.5 $ 2.67 $ 2.40 $ 0.27 $ 1.44 $ 1.23 $ 127.20 $ 490.00 Amberley Avenue to PN Hospital 5.5 $ 2.26 $ 2.40 -$ 0.15 $ 1.44 $ 0.82 -$ 69.60 $ 326.00

It should be noted that if parking costs of $2 a day are paid, even short trips are substantially more economical by bus. Further savings can be made by the use of monthly passes, which provide a 30% discount on the GoCard fares, but do require a larger amount to be outlaid initially.

Service improvement options which offer good coverage of the city, shorter trips, higher frequency and reasonable fares could allow residents to choose to take the bus more often, and greater savings could then be achieved, freeing up household funds for other spending in the city. However the level of saving will depend on individual circumstance and choice and cannot easily be quantified without making a number of assumptions.

11 Automobile Association 2013 petrol car operating costs 12 A compact vehicle is defined by the AA as slightly larger sedans, hatches or wagons

9. Discussion

9.1 Option One

Option One presents the lowest risk to Council as this is the cheapest option and results in no significant change to how services are currently run.

This option does address community feedback regarding frequency and service hours and aligns with the service changes proposed in the Horizons Regional Council Long-term Plan 2012-22, which were:

 Extending service hours from 6pm to 7.30pm;  Extension of Saturday service hours from 8.20am to 5pm, with more frequent services;  Late night services on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to 11pm;

This option could be implemented fairly quickly once additional buses have been sourced as there are no changes to the routes and infrastructure required to support the services.

However the major barriers to usage which have been identified by the public such as the long, alternating loop services or coverage to areas of the city such as Summerhill, Ashhurst and Longburn have not been addressed under this option.

In addition, travel time compared with private vehicle and in some cases, walking or cycling, remains unfavourable and journey by bus may be seen as the least desirable option for those who have a number of choices available. It is likely that significant increases in patronage would not occur under this option.

9.2 Option Two

Option Two provides a whole new route structure, however, where possible sections of existing routes have been retained to minimise confusion over changes and also the need for significant infrastructure changes.

The removal of the specific services to Massey and the requirement for some Massey passengers to transfer to the HCM or orbiter route does pose some risk that usage by Massey staff and students may reduce. However, the HCM and orbiter routes would be supported by additional targeted capacity during peak time, to ensure that while passengers may have to transfer, the wait time is minimal. Approximately 16% of current Massey passengers utilise an urban route, with the assumption that the majority ultimately transfer to a Massey service. The orbiter route has been designed to cover the areas that the current Massey-specific service covers and the lollipop routes also provide coverage in those areas, so the overall impact may be low.

The introduction of new routes, as well as doubling of the current frequency under Option 2A would be a significant change in the number of buses required and therefore cost from the current services. Option 2B with a

lesser frequency (20 minute peak, 40 minutes off-peak) could be introduced initially with a long-term aim to move towards Option 2A (10 minute peak, 20 minute off-peak) as demand grows and further funding becomes available. Section seven of this report further discusses how each option could be staged.

Palmerston North City Council is currently considering proposals for development in both the City West (Pioneer Highway) and Whakarongo areas. In addition, significant growth is occurring in the Summerhill area. In the short-term, while growth is occurring at either City West or Whakarongo, the Ashhurst to City and Longburn to City routes could be enhanced or diverted to provide coverage to these areas. In the long-term, additional lollipop routes could easily be added to the network structure.

Development in the Pacific Drive/Johnston Drive area in Summerhill will eventually result in a link road joining the new subdivisions with Aokautere Drive. Once complete, the proposed lollipop route 13 could be extended to cover this area.

9.3 Option Three

Option Three results in the most significant change from the status quo and relies heavily on transfers between services for many day-to-day journeys. While only one transfer will generally be required, the number of transfers overall will be much greater than current as a higher proportion of passengers will need to transfer and high quality infrastructure and high frequencies are required to support transfers. Phase One feedback on transfers was mixed; some submitters did not see having to transfer between services as a barrier, provided the wait times between services were minimal. Others submitters viewed transfers as a disadvantage, particularly for short journeys.

Grid networks operate very successfully in Europe and North America where frequencies are high (at least every 15 minutes but ideally every 5-10 minutes), populations are sufficiently dense to support the high volume of buses on each line and the cities have many activity centres compared to one large downtown area. Auckland Transport has recently reformed the complicated existing network structure into a simple high frequency grid network which will be implemented from 2015.

In an ideal grid system, most of the population is within walking distance of one north-south or east-west line, enabling people to get to anywhere from anywhere with one connection. The frequency must therefore be high to facilitate transfers between services. Best practice suggests frequencies of no less than 15 minutes, with five to ten minutes being ideal. Taking this into account, Option 3A is likely to be at the outer limit of the frequency that would provide the best level of service for passengers. Should a grid network be introduced in Palmerston North, Option 3B would provide an appropriate frequency to ensure that passengers can easily transfer between services with minimal wait times.

Frequency options for weekends and late night services under both grid options proposed are very high compared to options one and two. This is because operating to an hourly frequency on late night services for example,

would result in significant wait times for passengers (except where someone is travelling directly along a route and does not need to transfer) and would be unlikely to be well utilised.

Given the high frequencies required for grid networks to be successful and the high level coverage of the city provided under this option, there is potential for routes which do not cover the major trip generators could be under-utilised throughout the day.

Cities such as Palmerston North with a large city centre, supported by only one or two other areas of high demand may be more suited to the radial or spider web type grid networks where most services pass through the city centre.

As with option two, additional routes could be easily added to the network structure to respond to future city growth.

9.4 Summary

All options have been peer reviewed by Traffic Design Group (TDG). TDG evaluated all options against the three guiding principles identified during the first stage of the review, as well as whether the option represents good practice and is responsive to the public feedback received. Their assessment is shown in the table below.

All options respond to the public feedback in different ways are the improved level of service proposed is likely to result in increases in patronage. There are advantages and disadvantages of each option and the working group has recommended that Option Two be put forward for further development and public consultation.

The group considers that Option One does go not far enough to address the fundamental issues with network structure that current and potential passengers have identified. Option Three, which could be effective in large metropolitan cities with high populations, provides a much more detailed level of coverage and frequency for a potentially low number of occasional journeys across town, rather than trips which serve the key trip generators in the city (Massey, the Hospital and CBD). This could potentially result in significant under-utilisation of areas of the network and may not represent best value for money. Significant high-quality infrastructure would also be required to support the level of transfers made under this option.

While the working group recommends Option Two as the preferred option for further development at this stage, there is a high level of public interest in the review and options developed, therefore all three options will be included in the information presented to the public for feedback.

Option Good Responsive Value for Passenger Community Notes practice to feedback money growth support Option Low Low Medium Medium Medium The current 1 – Operationally Continuation Approach Adding Any change system is not Status simple but of current allows frequency is likely to well Quo customer system phased and be met with understood Plus confusing. would be introduction extending some and is against of improved hours is a resistance. confusing to feedback. services good way many. Add according to to increase more frequency demand. patronage etc. is not but some going to reduce barriers to this issue. growth will still remain (i.e. confusing network design). Option High Medium Medium High Medium Users of 2 - Simpler Responds Frequencies Simplified Simple to current system Lollipop design than well enough could be network understand. which suits current. Size to feedback. varied to structure Some them will be of one-way match and higher resistance inconvenienced loop at end demand. frequency to change initially and to of each Significant will provide likely. what level is an lollipop could new capacity better unknown. be an issue. on unproven platform for routes (e.g. growth. airport). Option Low Low Low Medium Low Typically grid 3 - Grid In principle Feedback High risk that High Such a systems suit a the idea is has transfer frequency radical location where good but the indicated requirements on simple change and high traffic ability to desire for will lead to network the need to generating apply it direct reduced use. layout has transfer for activity exists efficiently is services Need to some many trips on many arms not so easy. with as few maintain opportunity will make of the network. transfers as high for this This is not the possible. frequency on improved approach case for much routes even growth. difficult to of Palmerston when “sell”. North. demand is low to maintain network credibility. Table Nine: Traffic Design Group assessment of options.

10. Next Steps

Following public consultation on the options developed, a final report recommending a preferred option will be prepared. This will presented to the Passenger Transport Committee in November 2014 which will then recommend adoption of the report to Council.

Horizons is required to prepare a new Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) by 30 June 2015, which identifies the essential services to be provided in the region, future services/improvements and the policies that will apply. The results of this review will inform development of the RPTP so that the future services are well outlined.

Implementation on the preferred option, including local funding requirements will be subject to Council’s Long-term Plan processes.

Appendix 1: Feedback from Palmerston North City Council

File: DMS #1042097

7 November 2013

Mrs Kelly Curry Transport Planner Transport Regional Services and Information Horizons Regional Council Private Bag 11025 Manawatu Mail Centre PALMERSTON NORTH 4442

Dear Kelly

Palmerston North Bus Review – City Bus Routes

Thank you for the opportunity to participate as a member of the stakeholder group and for input into the Urban Bus Services Review, particularly the route structure and frequency.

The purpose of this letter is to provide some preliminary thoughts on the proposed options.

Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) supports the proposed options that increase the frequency of bus services, improve routes and increase hours of service.

As discussed previously, PNCC wishes to ensure that there are good quality bus services to our outlying areas, such as Longburn, Linton and Ashhurst, as well as to popular recreation areas, such as the Manawatu gorge and sports facilities. It is important to timetable these services to meet local needs, including commuting to work in the city, and bus arrival times aligned to normal hours of work.

All the proposed options will improve current bus services and contribute to a more vibrant, caring, and sustainable City, as well as potentially reduce reliance on the private car.

Our preference is for the Lollipop type route with modification to some routes. The Lollipop type route would provide good coverage of the city and reinforces bringing people into the city centre. We are undertaking some analysis of the draft route structure to assess catchments and provide some comparative coverage of the current and potential routes, which may assist in further development of route options if the lollipop option is pursued.

While both alternative options have some benefits, PNCC does not favour the Status Quo ‘Plus’ nor the Grid type routes.

Adding more services and extending operational hours to the current system would provide an improved service to users, but we consider that the coverage, directness and complexity of the routes would still provide a barrier to uptake and continued use.

The Grid-type route is a step too far in terms of coverage for a low number of occasional journeys across town rather than daily trips serving the key trip generators in the City. We believe a grid type route would be unaffordable and inefficient in terms of use of infrastructure, requiring substantial investment and may potentially not be well used if the frequency is not sufficient. Our knowledge and experience suggest that people are likely to be prepared to walk further to catch better and more direct services.

We look forward to discussing these options in more detail at our next stakeholder group meeting.

For further background and information, please contact Neil Miller, Head of Strategy and Policy, on 356 8199 extension 7889 or Robin Malley on extension 7908.

Yours sincerely

Neil Miller Head of Strategy and Policy

Appendix 2: Current network map

Appendix 3: Option Two Maps

Appendix 4: Option Three Maps

Appendix 5: Cost Modelling Options

Scenario One – Assumes 50% New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy

Option 1 Option 1 Option 2A Option 2A Option 2B Option 2B Option 3A Option 3A Option 3B Option 3B High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 2014-15 Transport % of Capital Rates, $ Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Ratable Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Value ($) (Draft Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Properties Annual Plan) 150,000 13.84 26.33 12.49 28.79 14.95 71.54 57.70 79.56 65.72 43.70 29.86 48.68 34.84 88.44 74.60 109.49 95.65 115.88 102.04 141.95 128.11 175,000 22.5% 16.15 30.71 14.56 33.58 17.43 83.46 67.31 92.82 76.67 50.98 34.83 56.79 40.64 103.18 87.03 127.73 111.58 135.19 119.04 165.60 149.45 195,000 18.00 34.22 16.22 37.42 19.42 93.00 75.00 103.43 85.43 56.80 38.80 63.28 45.28 114.97 96.97 142.33 124.33 150.64 132.64 184.53 166.53 225,000 20.77 39.49 18.72 43.18 22.41 107.30 86.53 119.34 98.57 65.54 44.77 73.01 52.24 132.66 111.89 164.23 143.46 173.81 153.04 212.92 192.15 250,000 23.07 43.88 20.81 47.98 24.91 119.23 96.16 132.60 109.53 72.83 49.76 81.13 58.06 147.40 124.33 182.48 159.41 193.13 170.06 236.58 213.51 38.7% 280,000 25.84 49.14 23.30 53.73 27.89 133.53 107.69 148.51 122.67 81.56 55.72 90.86 65.02 165.09 139.25 204.37 178.53 216.30 190.46 264.96 239.12 300,000 27.69 52.65 24.96 57.57 29.88 143.07 115.38 159.12 131.43 87.39 59.70 97.35 69.66 176.88 149.19 218.97 191.28 231.75 204.06 283.89 256.20 350,000 32.30 61.43 29.13 67.17 34.87 166.92 134.62 185.64 153.34 101.96 69.66 113.58 81.28 206.36 174.06 255.47 223.17 270.38 238.08 331.21 298.91 17.3% 390,000 36.00 68.45 32.45 74.84 38.84 185.99 149.99 206.86 170.86 113.61 77.61 126.56 90.56 229.94 193.94 284.66 248.66 301.28 265.28 369.06 333.06 415,000 8.1% 38.30 72.83 34.53 79.64 41.34 197.91 159.61 220.12 181.82 120.89 82.59 134.67 96.37 244.68 206.38 302.91 264.61 320.59 282.29 392.71 354.41 550,000 3.9% 50.76 96.53 45.77 105.55 54.79 262.30 211.54 291.72 240.96 160.22 109.46 178.48 127.72 324.28 273.52 401.45 350.69 424.88 374.12 520.47 469.71

Scenario Two – Assumes no additional New Zealand Transport Agency subsidy beyond current levels

Option 1 Option 1 Option 2A Option 2A Option 2B Option 2B Option 3A Option 3B Option 3B High Low Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue Option 3A High Low Fare Revenue High Fare Revenue Low Fare Revenue Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Fare Revenue Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario 2014-15 Transport % of Capital Rates, $ Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Ratable Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Change ($) Value ($) (Draft Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Rate ($) Properties Annual Plan)

150,000 13.84 26.33 12.49 43.73 29.89 129.24 115.40 145.28 131.44 73.55 59.71 83.52 69.68 163.04 149.20 205.14 191.30 217.89 204.05 270.05 256.21 175,000 22.5% 16.15 30.71 14.56 51.01 34.86 150.78 134.63 169.49 153.34 85.80 69.65 97.44 81.29 190.21 174.06 239.33 223.18 254.21 238.06 315.05 298.90 195,000 18.00 34.22 16.22 56.84 38.84 168.01 150.01 188.86 170.86 95.61 77.61 108.58 90.58 211.95 193.95 266.68 248.68 283.26 265.26 351.06 333.06 225,000 20.77 39.49 18.72 65.59 44.82 193.86 173.09 217.91 197.14 110.32 89.55 125.28 104.51 244.55 223.78 307.71 286.94 326.84 306.07 405.07 384.30 250,000 23.07 43.88 20.81 72.88 49.81 215.40 192.33 242.13 219.06 122.58 99.51 139.20 116.13 271.73 248.66 341.90 318.83 363.15 340.08 450.08 427.01 38.7% 280,000 25.84 49.14 23.30 81.62 55.78 241.25 215.41 271.18 245.34 137.28 111.44 155.90 130.06 304.33 278.49 382.93 357.09 406.73 380.89 504.08 478.24 300,000 27.69 52.65 24.96 87.45 59.76 258.48 230.79 290.55 262.86 147.09 119.40 167.04 139.35 326.07 298.38 410.28 382.59 435.78 408.09 540.09 512.40 350,000 32.30 61.43 29.13 102.03 69.73 301.56 269.26 338.98 306.68 171.61 139.31 194.88 162.58 380.42 348.12 478.66 446.36 508.41 476.11 630.11 597.81 17.3% 390,000 36.00 68.45 32.45 113.69 77.69 336.02 300.02 377.72 341.72 191.22 155.22 217.15 181.15 423.89 387.89 533.36 497.36 566.51 530.51 702.12 666.12 415,000 8.1% 38.30 72.83 34.53 120.97 82.67 357.56 319.26 401.93 363.63 203.47 165.17 231.07 192.77 451.06 412.76 567.55 529.25 602.83 564.53 747.12 708.82 550,000 3.9% 50.76 96.53 45.77 160.33 109.57 473.88 423.12 532.68 481.92 269.67 218.91 306.24 255.48 597.80 547.04 752.18 701.42 798.93 748.17 990.17 939.41