sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lyall Bay, Ngauranga, Trackless train

Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Let’s Get Moving – network options Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council

Final draft

11 April 2018 (v26)

Adam Lawrence [email protected]

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 1 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Background ...... 5 2.1. Strategic context ...... 6 2.1.1. RLTP 2015 ...... 6 2.1.2. PT Plan 2014 ...... 6 2.2. Wellington 2018 network ...... 9 3. Network approach and assumptions ...... 10 3.1. Rapid transit in Wellington ...... 10 3.2. Patronage drivers ...... 11 3.2.1. (BRT) ...... 12 3.2.2. Transit (LRT) ...... 12 3.2.3. Other rapid transit vehicles ...... 12 3.3. Network approach and principles ...... 13 3.3.1. What is a network approach? ...... 13 3.3.2. Network design principles ...... 14 3.4. Public infrastructure ...... 16 3.4.1. Vehicle assumptions ...... 16 3.4.2. Fixed infrastructure ...... 17 3.5. Demand assumptions ...... 18 3.5.1. Demand scenarios ...... 18 3.5.2. Existing boardings ...... 19 3.5.3. Land use changes ...... 21 3.6. Service level assumptions ...... 23 4. Wellington CBD network ...... 24 4.1. Why two primary corridors? ...... 24 4.2. Description of the two primary corridors ...... 26 4.2.1. Why not Featherston and Victoria Streets? ...... 28 4.2.2. What about a Waterfront corridor via Customhouse and Waterloo Quays? ...... 28 4.3. interchanges and stops ...... 29 4.3.1. Wellington Station Interchange ...... 29 4.3.2. Lambton Central Interchange ...... 29 4.3.3. Park Interchange ...... 29 4.3.4. Other stops ...... 30 4.4. Accessibility within the CBD ...... 31 4.4.1. Golden Mile corridor ...... 32 4.4.2. Waterfront corridor ...... 33 5. Network options ...... 34 5.1. Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036) ...... 35 5.1.1. Option overview ...... 35 5.1.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 35 5.1.3. Routes and service levels ...... 37 5.2. Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the ...... 38 5.2.1. Option overview ...... 38 5.2.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 38 5.2.3. Routes and service levels ...... 40 5.2.4. Sub-options ...... 41 5.3. Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, , Kilbirnie and Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital ...... 43 5.3.1. Option overview ...... 43

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 2 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.3.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 43 5.3.3. Routes and service levels ...... 45 5.3.4. Sub-options ...... 46 5.4. Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar ...... 48 5.4.1. Option overview ...... 48 5.4.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 48 5.4.3. Routes and service levels ...... 50 5.4.4. Sub-options ...... 51 5.5. Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar ...... 54 5.5.1. Option overview ...... 54 5.5.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 54 5.5.3. Routes and service levels ...... 56 5.5.4. Sub-options ...... 57 5.6. Option 4D – Revised Option 4 aligning with package evaluation ...... 58 5.6.1. Option overview ...... 58 5.6.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 58 5.6.3. Routes and service levels ...... 60 5.7. Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar ...... 61 5.7.1. Option overview ...... 61 5.7.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs ...... 61 5.7.3. Routes and service levels ...... 63 5.8. Other considerations ...... 64 5.8.1. Options for east/west routes via Mt Victoria...... 64 5.8.2. Options for east/west routes via Newtown ...... 65 5.8.3. Kilbirnie to Airport route options ...... 66 5.9. Summary of options ...... 67 5.9.1. Networks for further consideration ...... 67 5.9.2. Key corridor trade-offs ...... 67 6. Priority measures and times...... 70 6.1. Public transport speeds relevant to Wellington ...... 70 6.2. Potential speed and travel time estimates ...... 71 6.3. Public transport priority assumptions ...... 72 6.3.1. Priority assumption for the CBD ...... 72 6.3.2. Priority assumptions outside the CBD ...... 73 6.4. Change in travel time on main routes ...... 74 6.5. Decision-making trade-offs ...... 75 7. Stop locations and walking catchments ...... 78 7.1. Stop locations ...... 78 7.2. Walk catchment analysis ...... 81 7.3. Willingness to walk ...... 86 8. Infrastructure and staging ...... 87 8.1. Infrastructure ...... 87 8.1.1. Stop facilities ...... 87 8.1.2. Depot requirements ...... 87 8.1.3. Other LRT supporting infrastructure ...... 88 8.2. Staging ...... 89 9. Option costing ...... 90 9.1. Annual resource requirements ...... 90 9.2. Unit cost rates ...... 92

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 3 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

9.3. Annual operating costs...... 93 9.4. Infrastructure capital costs ...... 95 10. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 96 10.1. Role of rapid transit ...... 96 10.2. CBD network ...... 96 10.3. Network options ...... 97 10.4. Vehicles ...... 97 10.5. Infrastructure ...... 97 10.6. Key findings so far ...... 98 10.7. Aspects not yet addressed ...... 98 10.8. Next steps ...... 98 References ...... 101 Example network design process ...... 107 Demand and capacity analysis ...... 109 Travel times ...... 113 Selected concept designs ...... 117 Corridor alignment and stop diagrams ...... 124

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 4 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

1. Introduction This report is a working document prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council to inform the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project. The purpose of this work is to identify options for delivering an integrated public transport network that best leverage the benefits of rapid transit within the LGWM study area. The options look at how to maximise overall public transport ridership while reducing reliance on the private car. This report focuses on identifying key features and trade-offs for several rapid transit network options (covering LRT and BRT) and is not intended to identify a preferred option. It is assumed that the LRT options could be delivered with light rail or alternative ultra-high capacity that provide a “like” rail service. The consideration of demand impacts and user benefits was outside the scope of this work. These impacts will need to be considered as part of the subsequent decision-making process and as an input into the economic evaluation.

2. Background Previous corridor studies, including the to Airport Corridor Study, have identified the need for a high quality, high frequency public transport spine through central Wellington city between Wellington station and the southern/eastern suburbs. The Wellington PT Spine Study (PTSS) was undertaken in 2013 and proposed a mass transit corridor for bus rapid transit (BRT) between Wellington Station and Newtown/Kilbirnie (along the Golden Mile to the Basin reserve, and then splitting to Kilbirnie via a new Mt Victoria Tunnel, and to Newtown via Adelaide Rd). A review by WSP in 2017 confirmed the PTSS preferred route (for either a BRT or LRT mass transit system) and noted that demand projections indicated an investment would be needed in approximately 10-15 years. This PTSS proposal was included as the cornerstone for public transport options in The Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) project. Three of the four LGWM scenarios put out for public consultation in 2017 included provision for mass transit. The consultation feedback included support for LRT and demand management instead of constructing additional capacity. A variation on the public transport spine corridor was also proposed (Scenario A+ with a single route via the waterfront, Taranaki St, a Mt Cook tunnel, Adelaide Rd, Newtown, a Mt Albert tunnel, Kilbirnie, to the airport). This feedback has been used to help identify the options set out in this report for integrating mass transit with the Wellington public transport network.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 5 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

2.1. Strategic context The strategic context for public transport in the region is set out in the Regional Land Transport Plan 2015 (RLTP) and Regional Public Transport Plan 2014 (PT Plan). Both these plans are being reviewed and updated in 2018. 2.1.1. RLTP 2015 The RLTP vision is (p15): ‘To deliver a safe, effective and efficient land transport network that supports the region’s economic prosperity in a way that is environmentally and socially sustainable’ The RLTP strategic objective for public transport is as follows (p9): A high quality, reliable public transport network A high quality (frequent, comfortable, safe, and easy to use) and reliable peak period public transport network will provide an efficient method for moving large numbers of people at peak times (with associated de-congestion benefits) along corridors where the transport network is in high demand and capacity is an issue. Continuing to improve off-peak accessibility will ensure that the public transport network provides a good base level of service for community accessibility purposes. …. Buses … provide core public transport services in many areas. Bus Rapid Transit (high quality, high capacity buses running in dedicated lanes) along the public transport priority spine in central Wellington and beyond will provide fast and reliable journeys through the Golden Mile/CBD and to the southern and eastern suburbs. The public transport outcomes supporting the strategic objective for public transport are (p37):  Increased public transport use  Improved public transport accessibility for all  Improved quality of public transport  Improved public transport reliability and journey times 2.1.2. PT Plan 2014 The PT Plan provides the direction for public transport in the region based on the policies set out in the RLTP. Selected objectives, policies and actions relevant to network design are as follows (pp61- 77): An integrated public transport network Objective 1. An integrated approach to the public transport network – including the planning and provision of services, infrastructure, and information  A simple network with a clear structure that is easy to understand  A connected network where it is easy and affordable to transfer between services  A consistent network providing a consistent customer experience

Policy 1.a Provide a simple, layered network of public transport services that is easy to understand  Plan an integrated network using the following layers of services: • Core services: the urban rail network and frequent bus services, providing high capacity services between centres and along key corridors • Local services: medium to low frequency services connecting residential areas, town centres, activity centres, and feeding core routes

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 6 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

• Targeted services: to meet demand, including peak only services, school services, night bus services, and community services to provide access where local services are not viable  Ensure that the public transport planning hierarchy is reflected in the Network Operating Framework

Policy 1.b Provide a public transport network that maximises the range of travel options and destinations available  Provide services, infrastructure, and that make it easy and safe to connect between services  Design routes, interchanges and timetables to provide convenient connections between services and facilitate anywhere-to-anywhere travel  Work with local councils to integrated land use and public transport planning so that an increasing proportion of the urban population lives within 500 metres of a stop on a core bus or local service or one kilometre from a rail station

Services and infrastructure standards Objective 2. High-quality, reliable, safe, and customer focused public transport services using modern vehicles and infrastructure Policy 2.b Improve public transport journey times to provide a service that is competitive with car travel, particularly on core routes  Implement BRT on the Public Transport Spine  Work with to provide bus priority measures (bus lanes, traffic signal priority) and rationalise bus stops on core bus routes, based on an analysis of service delays and numbers  Maximise through-routing in the Wellington CBD to minimise bus congestion on the Golden Mile  Include initiatives to reduce times as part of the integrated fares and ticketing project

Policy 2.g Integrate public transport with walking and cycling  Ensure that integrated walking, cycling and public transport services are considered when designing and delivering interchanges and other facilities  Advocate for and work with local councils and developers to ensure that street networks are designed to accommodate public transport services and are well connected with walking and cycling facilities

Sustainable funding Objective 8. Sustainable funding arrangements that balance user contributions (fares) with public funding Policy 8.b Achieve farebox recovery targets The PT Plan provides further detail on how layered services deliver an integrated network (p34): The [public transport] network is based on a layered hierarchy of services:  Core routes form the network’s backbone, linking areas of high demand with high- capacity, direct services with extensive operating hours. • Core rail routes provide high-capacity, long-distance, time-competitive commuter services connecting key urban areas across the region. Their primary functions are to reduce severe road congestion on State Highways 1 and 2 and

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 7 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

meet the demand for travel from key suburban and town centres to the Wellington CBD during peak periods. • Core bus routes provide high-capacity, frequent, all-day services within urban areas, reducing congestion on the major transport corridors and meeting the all- day-travel demand. They operate at least every 15 minutes during the day, and often more frequently during busy periods.  Local routes include all-day medium- to low-frequency services connecting town and activity centres along the lower-demand corridors, providing local access to town and activity centres within the suburban areas. These routes complement the core network by covering areas it does not serve and by collecting and distributing from and to it.  Targeted services provide services to areas or link destinations where there is not enough demand to justify core or local routes, or where normal services cannot meet the peak demand

The PT Plan describes how the core routes in Wellington city have been changed to align with the outcomes of the Public Transport Spine Study. The following two core bus route corridors are identified (p42):  A north-south spine linking Johnsonville to Island Bay via Wellington and Newtown  An east-west spine linking to via Wellington, Kilbirnie and Miramar.

These core bus route corridors are shown in Figure 2.1 and form the backbone of the Wellington city 2018 bus network (refer section 5.1). Core routes also include Karori, Brooklyn, via Wallace St and Constable St, Johnsonville as shown in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.1 Core bus route corridors (PT Plan) Figure 2.2 Wellington network (PT Plan)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 8 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

2.2. Wellington 2018 bus network The Wellington city 2018 network is shown in Figure 2.3. This new network provides 10 or 15-minute headways on all core services and gives effect to the policies in the PT Plan. There are still several areas where further improvements could be made. Outstanding issues include:  Bus services continue operating at capacity along Golden Mile. There is a small reduction in bus volume at peak but still around 100 buses per hour in the peak direction leading to poor reliability and long running times.  No increase in bus priority measures or rationalisation leading to poor reliability and no travel time improvements.  Peak only services continue to provide a complex overlay of services to meet demand. The introduction of dedicated rights-of-way (e.g. bus lanes), signal pre-emption and where appropriate grade separation could provide significant improvements in travel time. These are the sort of improvements that would come with mass transit and should be considered for all core routes to move passengers out of the private car.

Figure 2.3 Wellington 2018 base network

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 9 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3. Network approach and assumptions This chapter provides some background on the network design approach and assumptions used to develop the network options in chapter 4. This chapter covers:  Rapid transit in Wellington – the characteristics assumed for rapid transit in Wellington.  Patronage drivers – brief outline of patronage drivers and the characteristics assumed for rapid transit services in Wellington.  Network approach and principles - provides a brief overview of what a network approach means and sets out the network design principles underlying the development of the network options.  Public transport infrastructure – brief overview of vehicle and fixed infrastructure considerations and assumptions.  Demand assumptions – outside of demand scenarios and how they have been used in this report to information development and costing of network options.  Service level assumptions – the minimum service levels (hours and frequencies) assumed for services across the network options considered.

3.1. Rapid transit in Wellington The following characteristics are assumed for rapid transit in Wellington, based on the LGWM work to date and the strategic context set out in section 2.1.  High frequency (at least 10-minutes all-day, every day)  Fast and reliable compared to car  High quality infrastructure  High capacity vehicles  High quality electric vehicles The PT Plan goal is to deliver these service characteristics across the core public transport network and based on the above considerations will be a prerequisite for any further significant change in mode share towards public transport. The Wellington 2018 bus network should start delivering many of these characteristics from mid-2018. The LGWM project is considering the role mass transit might service as part of the public transport network and how services would be delivered between Wellington Station and the Airport. In this context mass transit is assumed to refer to a LRT type of service with the size of vehicle and right-of- way being key distinguishing characteristics from BRT1. All the other characteristics above are largely shared between the LRT and BRT, including fast, frequent and reliable services using high quality electric vehicles along dedicated rights-of-way (where possible).

1 In this context LRT refers to either light rail transit or “like” rail transit where very high capacity vehicles are used (e.g. 150+ passengers). Such vehicles are much longer than BRT buses which are 12m (double-decker) to 18m (articulated) long and carry up to around 100 passengers per vehicle.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 10 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.2. Patronage drivers There is a lot of literature on the impacts of rapid transit and the relative costs and benefits of LRT and BRT. A literature review was not included in the scope for the current work on rapid transit network options but some references are provided (L.E.K. Consulting 2017b; BIC 2014; Clark 2011; Luke & MacDonald 2006; Savarie 2016; UniServices 2016b). The Bus Industry Confederation in Australia (2014) identified a number of core elements underlying rapid transit patronage. These core elements are shown in Table 3.1 along with their relative impact, with the following elements of highest impact:  Service frequency  Service coverage  Service quality  Service information These characteristics all relate to how the public transport network (primarily routes and service frequencies) meet the needs of passengers. Other factors such as population and employment densities, fares and travel time improvements have lesser impacts. These findings are not necessarily applicable to Wellington and the timing of impacts also needs to be considered. For example, factors such as travel time and reliability may be more important in the short term while population and employment densities may be key drivers in the longer term. There is a body of work on the importance of densities and transit oriented developed that should also be considered.

Table 3.1 Core elements underlying rapid transit patronage (BIC 2014 Table 3.3) Element Description Impact Service frequency Scheduled frequency of service along routes of operation. At optimal levels HIGH during peak this means an effective “timetable free” frequency, for example a bus every five minutes on a Bus Rapid Transit system. This creates an intuitive understanding amongst users of the availability of transport and can feed into perceptions of service convenience and quality. Service coverage Geographical coverage of the service and span of hours of operation. Span of HIGH hours in particular can influence user perceptions of service quality. Service quality Customer service levels, user perceptions of safety on board vehicles and user HIGH to perceptions of safety and amenity while waiting at stations influence the MEDIUM ability of Rapid Transit systems to attract new passengers. Ride comfort can relate to the use of new vehicles with modern design and engineering for improved comfort on Rapid Transit systems. Service information The availability of information on services and timetables to users also plays a HIGH to role in perception of service quality and the ability of this element to MEDIUM influence patronage. As highlighted previously, the adoption of a timetable free system on Rapid Transit systems will improve the perception of service quality. Residential density Residential densities and population in the areas of operation. Indicative MEDIUM densities required before the construction of Rapid Transit systems are encompassed in the ARTAG model. Employment density Prevalence of commercial property in the areas of operation. Indicative MEDIUM densities required before the construction of Rapid Transit systems are encompassed in the ARTAG model. Service cost [fares] Fares, relative cost of service to other modes. MEDIUM to LOW Travel time savings Door to door ride time for passengers and improvements relative to pre- MEDIUM to existing forms of public transport and competing modes of transport including LOW walking, cycling and cars.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 11 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.2.1. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Bus rapid transit is delivered using high capacity, high quality buses operating along dedicated rights- of-way. BRT in the Wellington context will have a distinct look and feel compared to, for example, the Auckland busway system due to constrained transport corridors and relatively short distances in Wellington. BRT in Wellington will focus on providing dedicated rights-of-way within existing road corridors using bus lanes with signal pre-emption at intersections and, where appropriate, grade separation. High capacity vehicles are already being rolled out with double-decker buses which can each carry 100 passengers. Articulated vehicles could also be used with similar capacities and future BRT vehicles could have even higher capacities. Vehicle types are covered further in section 3.4. A key benefit of BRT compared to LRT is that buses can serve a wide number of destinations before being routed down the BRT corridors without forcing passengers to transfer. This benefit is only possible where vehicles are of an appropriate size and capacity to operate along and beyond the dedicated BRT rights-of-way. The options in this report assume BRT will be provided on all core corridors where LRT is not provided. This assumes BRT can be rolled out over time as part of a managed programme. 3.2.2. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Many of the considerations for Light Rail Transit (LRT) are similar to those for BRT, particularly the need for dedicated rights-of-way to deliver reduced travel times. The key difference is the vehicle type and fixed guideway, although there may be very high capacity bus options (150+ passengers) that would be treated the same as LRT. LRT vehicles are generally higher capacity than bus (although higher capacity bus technologies are available). We have assumed an LRV with a capacity of around twice that of a double-decker bus, although this also comes with a longer length of 33.5m compared to a double-decker bus of 12.0m (articulated buses are around 18m). Vehicle types are covered further in section 3.4. LRT should have its own right of way, the same as for BRT but in this case the right-of-should should not also be shared with buses. Buses should avoid using LRT lanes where possible to avoid impacting on travel time and reliability (the stop requirements are also different). Where this is not possible, e.g. for space and/or interchange requirements, the length of shared right-of-way should be kept to a minimum. 3.2.3. Other rapid transit vehicles There are other rapid transit vehicles that could be considered, such as the CRRC ART (articulated rapid transit) vehicle being produced in China. The ART would operate a similar network to LRT and has a similar capacity but with greater flexibility, for example it does not require tracks and can handle steeper gradients. The ART could be an option for delivering a wider LRT network, for example extending to the north or west.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 12 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.3. Network approach and principles This section provides a brief overview of what a network approach means and sets out the network design principles underlying the development of the network options. 3.3.1. What is a network approach? A network approach aims to deliver an effective and efficient network of public transport services that provides choice and supports the diverse range of travel in a city. This means rapid transit corridors and services should not be considered in isolation but as part of the wider public transport network. For example, there is a perception that a “single spine” to Kilbirnie (and Airport) via Newtown is better than a “split spine” with separate branches to Kilbirnie (and Airport) and Newtown because it will provide higher service frequencies and connect more destinations. This is not necessarily the case as higher service frequencies may only be required to meet demand as far as Newtown on a single spine. A single spine also connects fewer destinations and therefore limits the number of journeys for which rapid transit is available. In this example, a single spine does not service Hataitai and excludes the potential to extend one branch to Island Bay. A single spine is also slightly slower compared to the direct route between Kilbirnie and the CBD via the Hataitai bus tunnel. A network approach looks at the above problem differently. It seeks to maximise the number of quality travel choices for people. The split spine is a good starting point because it provides fast, frequent and direct services from Kilbirnie (and Airport) to the CBD via Hataitai tunnel and from Newtown to the CBD. While the split spine does not provide a connection between Kilbirnie and Newtown/Hospital taking a network approach means providing this connection with a third route with a similar high level of service. Passengers can now reach a larger number of destinations with only one transfer and most passengers will continue to have fast, frequent and direct services to the CBD. The third route also provides potential connections to Seatoun and Mt Cook while the Newtown route can extend to Island Bay. A network approach is designed to deliver the best overall network outcome and not just to boost ridership on a few selected rapid transit routes. This is particularly important when considering options for a single LRT line as this line must connect with the wider network, including alternative BRT lines that may carry some of the demand that would otherwise go to LRT. In this instance it is important to consider overall network performance and benefits of connecting multiple destinations as part of an overall network, rather than just boosting ridership on a specific line. A network approach is designed to create what is often termed a “network effect” where a network of high quality, frequent and direct routes interact to allow travel between many more destinations than can be served on a single line (Mees et al. 2010).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 13 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.3.2. Network design principles This work takes a “network first” approach that is based on the following principles (Dodson et al. 2011) :  Simple and direct network structures The PT Plan identifies the core network, which consists of a series of simple and direct lines, particularly the north/south and east/west corridors that form the backbone of the Wellington 2018 bus network. This structure and the core corridors identified in the PT Plan are retained in the options covered in this report, although how these corridors connect varies.  Plan a hierarchy of lines into a network The PT Plan provides the following hierarchy of lines:  Core services – providing high capacity services between centres and along key corridors  Local services - medium to low frequency services connecting residential areas, town centres, activity centres, and feeding core routes  Targeted services – additional services required to meet demand, including peak and, school travel This report is focused on the core services, which identify the corridors along which most public transport journeys occur and therefore where the investment focus should be.  Plan for speed, consistency and reliability The PT Plan policies seek to provide a public transport service that is competitive with car travel times. This means providing the infrastructure and facilities to provide fast, frequent and direct services. Public transport priority measures such as bus lanes, dedicated rights-of- way and signal pre-emption are important tools. The placement of stops and interchanges must balance between speed and access. Stops and interchanges should be located at key nodes and activity centres. The “ideal” 800m spacing for LRT and BRT stop spacing should only be applied cautiously in the Wellington context where space is very constrained such that local services cannot pick up catchments left by longer stop spacing2. Within the CBD speed limits are low (30km/h) and boardings/alighting are high – these two factors have more impact on travel time than stop spacing.  Coordinate convenient transfers Quality interchanges and easy transfers is a key component of a high quality public transport network and are necessary to provide cost effective and efficient links between the maximum possible number of origins and destinations. A helpful principle for planning transfers is the “12-step rule” which is that a passenger should ideally be able to transfer from one service to another within 12 steps. In reality this is not possible but emphasises the need to keep transfers as short as possible. Passengers should not be forced to transfer at the edge of the CBD or too close to their destinations.

2 Literature shows that people will walk further to higher quality services which supports greater distance between stops. People may be willing to walk longer distances to access PT, but this proportion does drop off the longer the distance.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 14 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

 Provide clear, ubiquitous and consistent information and marketing The provision of a simple line structure and high frequencies that don’t require a timetable can assist with this. These network principles form the basis of a network approach and underpin the existing PT Plan policies including the objective to deliver an integrated public transport network.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 15 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.4. Public transport infrastructure Public transport infrastructure requirements can be split between vehicles and fixed infrastructure. Vehicle assumptions are a product of mode and vehicle capacity choices whereas fixed infrastructure could be considered as a product of mode and road corridor choices. 3.4.1. Vehicle assumptions The type and capacity of a range of bus and light rail vehicles is provided in Table 3.2 based on review of Australian and operations. In this report we have assumed (for the service types identified in section 3.6):  Core BRT: Double-decker buses which are 12.0m long and have a capacity of 100 passengers per vehicle (peak 1-hour planning capacity of 85). Core BRT could also be operated with articulated buses which have similar capacities to double-decker.  Core LRT: Artic LRV which are 33.5m long and have a capacity of 218 passengers per vehicle (peak 1-hour planning capacity of 180). The use of double length light-rail vehicles is also considered (either coupled or as longer consist).  Local Bus A & B: Rigid standard buses with a capacity of 65 passengers per vehicle (peak 1- hour planning capacity of 57).

Table 3.2 Capacities of public transport vehicles (ATAP 2018) Passenger Capacity per Vehicle Seats + Offpeak standees / Peak planning planning Mode/vehicle type Length (m) Seats vehicle (1) capacity (2) capacity (6) A B C D E F Bus (Diesel) Mini 8.0 19 19 19 - Midi 10.0 30 48 41 - Rigid Standard 12.0 43 65 57 - Rigid long 14.5 51 78 68 - Articulated 18.0 57 90 78 - Double decker 12.0 85 100 85(5) 77 Bus (Gas) Rigid Standard 12.0 43 65 57 - Light Rail Artic (3) 33.5 64 218 180 128 Heavy Rail EMU 3-car set (4) 71.0 228 550 470 205 Matangi 2-car set (7) 43.1 174 277 246 157 Notes: (1) This is the maximum number of passengers that can be carried per vehicle - allowing for seating capacity and for standing capacity (based on c4.0 standees/m2 net floor area). (2) This represents the practical average capacity/vehicle at the maximum load point, spread over the peak 1-hour peak direction on an average day (based on 2.5 standees/m2 net floor area for Bus and Heavy Rail, 2.9/m2 for Light Rail/). (3) Capacity is for double-articulated (based on MEL E-type vehicles). (4) Capacity is for single-deck 3-car sets (generally operated as 6-car ), based on MEL Xtraps2 rollingstock (3-car sets are 71m length, 228 seats, 97 m2 standing area, practical loading standard of 2.5 standees/m2). (5) The Australian standard is 94 for double decker buses but the 0.85 factor is based on current 15-min:60-min demand for Wellington Golden Mile. (6) The bus and heavy rail factor is based on 90% of seated capacity and light rail 200% of seated capacity. This is used to estimate off-peak headways based on 1-hour demand. (7) Matangi trains are not included in ATAP but has been added for reference. The Johnsonville line can operate up to a 6-car set at 15-minute frequencies. Source GWRC.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 16 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.4.2. Fixed infrastructure The fixed infrastructure required to support the public transport network and rapid transit services is an important consideration. Vehicles (bus or BRT) are covered above. Key fixed infrastructure includes:  Stops, stations and transport interchanges  Priority measures (e.g. bus/LRT lanes and signal pre-emption)  Real time information displays  On-street machines (for off-board ticketing)  LRT specific requirements (e.g. tracks, power supply) Fixed infrastructure exists to support the public transport network and must be considered when planning public transport services. Fixed infrastructure assumptions and impacts on travel time are discussed further in chapter 6. The location of public transport stops is covered in chapter 7, with selected concept designs provided in Appendix E.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 17 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.5. Demand assumptions This section identifies the demand assumptions used in this report. Three demand scenarios (low, medium and high) have been developed to inform potential service levels and capacities on the core public transport network. These demand scenarios are designed to provide an indication of the highest feasible level of future public transport demand in Wellington. This report does not consider the potential demand response to service or mode changes under the network options (such considerations being out of scope for this report). Further work is required to estimate demand impacts which in turn will need to feed into an economic evaluation in order to identify a preferred option for inclusion in the programme business case. 3.5.1. Demand scenarios The following demand scenarios have been provided by GWRC to inform the public transport network options (also refer Appendix C):  Base 2013 – base WPTM model outputs.  Low 2036 – all population growth allocated to public transport and active modes.  Medium 2036 – as per Low 2036 together with 25% reduction in car mode share to the CBD and set public transport mode share to 15% for all other trips.  High 2036 – as per Low 2036 together with 33% reduction in car mode share to all destinations. The base and low demand scenarios are provided for information only. The medium and high scenarios are applied as follows3:  Medium 2036: This demand scenario is used in this report for setting headways and for network costing for comparison purposes. This is still considered a high growth scenario with rapid transit service levels applied across all the core public transport network services in all the network options considered.  High 2036: This demand scenario provides a stretch target against which LRT and BRT capacities will be tested. The demand in this scenario is intended to exceed any potential demand from TOD or other intensification and therefore it will over estimate demand where there is no such intensification. This scenario is therefore only appropriate for sensitivity testing demand and is not an appropriate scenario for planning purposes. Figure 3.1 shows the Wellington demand range from the eastern and southern suburbs compared to different mode options. This assumes maximum 10-minute all-day (based on off-peak demand being 30% of peak demand) and maximum of 100 vehicles per hour for a mode to be considered for a given level of demand. Vehicle capacities as per section 3.2.

3 The demand estimates in this report are not appropriate for use in an economic evaluation as they do not include the demand response to the different network options. As noted above, further work on demand impacts is required.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 18 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 3.1 Theoretical capacity of single high-quality corridor

Notes: Wellington demand refers to potential passenger demand from eastern and southern suburbs based on low, medium and high demand scenarios.

3.5.2. Existing boardings The distribution of existing boardings within the study area (south of Wellington Station) is shown in Figure 3.2. This shows:  A very large number of boardings through the central city.  Significant demand at The Basin (due to schools), Newtown and Kilbirnie  High demand at the Kent/Cambridge, Hataitai, Hospital, , Airport.  Other areas of strong demand in Taranaki Street, Constable Street, Kilbirnie Sports Arena, Miramar, Miramar North, Strathmore shops, Island Bay. It is important for future networks to cater for both existing and future demand, for example high service levels should generally be maintained in areas of existing high demand while also being extended to areas of future high demand.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 19 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 3.2 Relative boardings per stop in Wellington (shown with Option 1 network)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 20 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.5.3. Land use changes This report does not consider land use changes in detail. The Wellington City Council Urban Growth Plan (2015) has been taken into account. The Urban Growth Plan identifies several growth precincts as shown in Figure 3.3. The following should be noted regarding the central city growth precincts:  The Victoria/Cuba and Te Aro precincts are close to the CBD with easy walking and cycling access to work and entertainment areas within the CBD.  The Victoria St, Taranaki St and Kent/Cambridge Terrace corridors are all on the core public transport network and would benefit from rapid transit services. The Urban Growth Plan also identifies Kilbirnie and Johnsonville as growth centres and Upper/Lower Stebbing and Lincolnshire Farm as greenfield growth areas. It is understood that further work has been undertaken on future growth and the Urban Growth Plan is now out of date.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 21 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 3.3 Wellington City Council Urban Growth Plan (2015)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 22 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

3.6. Service level assumptions We have applied minimum service level standards across all services in each option to provide a common basis for comparison. These are applied as minimum policy settings and will be increased for options where additional capacity is required on certain lines. The headway assumptions based on service type are set out in Table 3.3 and hours of operation assumptions in Table 3.4. Please note the assumed hours of operation are longer than would be operated in practice, particularly on weekends, but have been kept simple for comparison purposes. The maximum headway assumptions are the same for core LRT and BRT as these are the maximum headways suitable for rapid transit services, irrespective of vehicle capacity. The network options provide shorter headways where this is necessary for capacity reasons, particularly at peak times. Demand off-peak may not justify shorter headways on most routes.

Table 3.3 Maximum headway assumptions based on service type Headway assumptions (minutes between services) Service type Peak Day Evening LRT Core 5 10 15 BRT Core 5 10 15 Bus Local A 10 20 30 Bus Local B 15 30 60

Table 3.4 Hours of operation assumptions Service hours (minutes between services) MF Weekend Service type Peak Day Evening Day Evening LRT Core 06:00 – 07:00 BRT Core 07:00 – 09:00 09:00 – 15:30 20:30 – 23:30 06:00 – 19:00 19:00 – 23:30 Bus Local A 15:30 – 18:30 18:30 – 20:30 Bus Local B

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 23 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4. Wellington CBD network A key element in looking at options for a rapid transit network in Wellington is the location of public transport corridors through the CBD. The development of the network options and analysis of the demand identified the need for two primary public transport corridors. These two primary public transport corridors are shown in Figure 4.1. This chapter describes the two primary corridors and explains why they are needed.

Figure 4.1 Two primary public transport corridors required for the CBD

4.1. Why two primary corridors? The performance of the Wellington CBD network is critical to the public transport system in Wellington. The PTSS and other studies have considered many options for routes through the CBD. The PTSS identified the need for a secondary corridor during peak periods (AECOM 2013a, pp.48–49) but this does not reflect the network principle of a simple, legible all-day network. The secondary corridor is also shared with general traffic and therefore will lead to longer journey times for passengers using peak services operating on the secondary corridor. The following are some key considerations leading to the conclusion that two primary public transport corridors are required in the CBD:  Passengers should not be forced to transfer on the CBD fringe as this will lead to lower mode share. This is particularly important for core corridors such as Karori, Northern Suburbs, Kilbirnie, Newtown.  If passengers are required to transfer this should be made as seamless as possible. Good transfer facilities require high frequencies and high-quality interchange facilities. A “12-step” transfer would be ideal (e.g. crossing a shared platform) and a useful principle although often not possible in practice. Interchanges are ideally located at key trip generators (which reduces the need to transfer) where different routes come together.  Services should operate along the fastest and most direct route possible. For example, Karori services should not divert via the Station because most passengers are travelling into the CBD and travelling via the station would not be the fastest route possible.  Within the CBD, the Golden Mile is the key trip generator, has high amenity values and serves as the primary pedestrian corridor. In this context public transport along the Golden Mile should focus on maximising access while maintaining amenity values and reasonable travel times (travel time savings compared to car become more important outside the CBD).  LRT as a mode is generally more suited to high amenity and mixed pedestrian environments than bus and requires fewer vehicle movements for any given level of demand. Bus can also serve this role but if LRT is in the mix it makes sense to operate LRT along the Golden Mile corridor and bus along the alternative corridor to maximise amenity along the Golden Mile.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 24 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

 The network options considered in detail in chapter 5 (below) result in the number of public transport services shown in Table 4.1. The higher number of buses required for LRT is due to approximately 30 BRT vehicles per hour from Newlands terminating at Lambton Central (not the full length of the CBD) which would run as through routes in option 1.

Table 4.1 Number of core network vehicles per hour operating on Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors during peak periods in the peak direction Golden Mile Waterfront Network option corridor corridor Total Existing 130+ - 130

Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036) 82^ - 82 Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the 46^ 46^ 92 airport Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and 28* 92^ 120 Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, 24* 86^ 110 Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, 86^ 24* 110 Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, 24* 62^ 86 Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Notes: + Scheduled arrivals at Lambton Central stop 5506 between 7.45 and 8.45am on 26-Sep-2017; ^ BRT vehicles e.g. double-decker buses; * LRT vehicles; Vehicle numbers do not include local buses operating through Te Aro Park Interchange along Taranaki Street or buses from Hutt Valley or Tawa/. Based on the above considerations two primary corridors are required for LRT and BRT options, although the justification is slightly different:  In the case of LRT, the second primary corridor is mainly required to avoid conflicts between LRT and bus operations. LRT and bus can utilise the same right-of-way for short distances, but a shared right-of-way will lead to increased delays and reduced capacity. Stop and station platform requirements are also different for LRT and buses and therefore would have to be duplicated along a shared corridor. There will be 24-28 light rail vehicles per hour on the first primary corridor and 62-92 buses per hour on the second primary corridor.  In the case of BRT, the second primary corridor is required to accommodate the number of bus movements. An all bus network will require around 82-92 buses per hour which in option 1 are split with 46 buses per hour on each corridor, which is within the threshold of around 40-60 buses per hour where significant impacts on travel times and reliability start to occur. The second primary corridor is therefore required to provide capacity to maintain reliability given the number of bus movements required. LRT options 2-4 result in the secondary corridor carrying a significant number of buses (86-92), with a large number of these (30) from the northern suburbs and terminating at Lambton Central4. The level of service is likely to be poor as vehicle volumes are similar to current golden Mile vehicle volumes. The BRT option 1 and LRT option 5 perform significantly better as the additional 30 buses from the northern suburbs (terminating at Lambton Central) are not required as these services are incorporated into through routes5.

4Northern suburbs buses terminate at Lambton Central which is a balance between taking passengers to their destination without transfers and avoiding providing excess capacity through duplication of LRT services. 5 Network options are based on high-level policy assumptions including equal headways in both directions that will need to be confirmed as part of detailed service planning and may reduce the number of vehicles required.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 25 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.2. Description of the two primary corridors The two primary public transport corridors are shown in more detail in Figure 4.2. The characteristics of the two primary corridors are discussed further below.

Figure 4.2 Two primary public transport corridors for the CBD

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 26 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Key features of the two primary corridors are as follows:  The Golden Mile corridor runs from Wellington Station6 to Courtenay Place and connects to services to the south and east along Kent/Cambridge Terrace. This is the premier corridor that currently operates through and provides access to the key pedestrian areas along the Golden Mile.  The Waterfront corridor runs from a new Lambton Central Interchange near Midland Park and along the waterfront and Taranaki Street to a new Te Aro Park Interchange at the corner of Taranaki/Manners/Courtenay. This corridor provides a faster route between the northern and southern ends of the CBD and connects to services from the west/north and south/south-west. North of Lambton Central Interchange the Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors both operate along Lambton Quay.  Both public transport corridors require full priority measures, although if LRT was to be introduced this should operate along the Golden Mile corridor as this mode is best suited to mixing with high pedestrian volumes and supports higher amenity values along the route.  Other , including Featherston and Victoria Streets are retained for other purposes included cycling, vehicle circulation and access. Cycling could also be accommodated on the waterfront.  The Golden Mile corridor also services as the main pedestrian corridor and will be dedicated to walking and public transport. There are some areas that need to be considered further. These include:  Impact on access and circulation for the roading network. This is potentially helped by public transport avoiding Featherston and Victoria Street which could potentially become two-way for circulation of cars and service vehicles in the CBD. Wakefield St and the Waterfront are also available.  Much of Lambton Quay will need to become public transport only, although it may be possible to add one-way loops in parts for taxis, cyclists and service access.  Taranaki/Manners intersection has conflicting movements. Signal green time will have to be shared between two public transport corridors of equal importance and also allow other vehicles along Taranaki St. There may be a need to consider blocking the end of Dixon Street to traffic and potentially the western end of Courtenay Place or allowing only one-way access.  Boulcott St intersection likely needs to retain two way-access for other vehicles which conflict with the green time for public transport. This is one of the reasons why the Brooklyn route is diverted through Taranaki Street rather than direct down Willis Street.  LRT on the Golden Mile could potentially operate along a short single-track section at the southern end of Lambton Quay to avoid using the diversion around Hunter Street and free up this area for other purposes. This would need to be considered further.  Use of northern end of Lambton Quay by up to four lanes of public transport (LRT/BRT).  Terminating LRT or BRT at Bunny Street in front of the station would be ideal for making rail transfers more attractive and hence growing patronage. This could require a one-way loop to provide capacity and would need some further detailed consideration.

6 The Golden Mile Spine could start at the Wellington Station bus interchange or ideally immediately outside the railway station (e.g. Bunny Street/main station entrance) to improve legibility and encourage rail passenger growth through easier transfers.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 27 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.2.1. Why not Featherston and Victoria Streets? Featherston and Victoria Streets have been considered but have not been recommended as a public transport corridor for the following reasons:  Both the light rail feasibility study in 1995 and Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study in 2007 considered Featherston Street but concluded the Golden Mile was the preferred route (Opus 2007a, p.5). This and other routes were also considered through the PTSS evaluation process (AECOM 2013a).  The use of the Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors for public transport frees up Featherston and Victoria streets for general traffic, providing a north/south connection through the entire CBD (assuming changed to two-way).  The Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors overlap most of the CBD stops and provide 400m walking access to the whole CBD. The Featherston Street route would increase the amount of overlap. In summary, Featherston and Victoria Streets are not recommended for public transport as this corridor is more suitable for general traffic circulation and access while public transport on the Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors would maximise coverage and service levels. 4.2.2. What about a Waterfront corridor via Customhouse and Waterloo Quays?  Consideration was given to running the Waterfront corridor direct to Bunny Street along Customhouse and Waterloo Quays. This option would require an additional stop on Customhouse Quay (between Brandon and Johnston streets) to maintain access to the central city area.  The Customhouse/Waterloo Quays route is not recommended for the following reasons: o The Customhouse Quays stop will be on the periphery of the CBD and require passengers to walk further to access Lambton Quay and The Terrace (in particular). o Passengers on Karori services will have to walk around 200m to transfer to services on the Waterfront corridor (either from the Supreme Court stop to the Station or from Lambton Central to Customhouse Quay)7. The Lambton Quay route would allow passengers to transfer at an integrated Lambton Central interchange facility designed for transfers. o Additional road space will be required on Customhouse and Waterloo Quays impacting on general traffic. The recommended Lambton Quay alignment frees these routes for general traffic.  The Customhouse/Waterloo Quays alignment would allow services to extend north from Bunny Street along Thorndon Quay. The recommended Lambton Quays alignment would require stops at the existing bus interchange or along the western side of the railway station for services to operate along Thorndon Quay unless the corridor was extended north along Aotea Quay (e.g. to the or to depot facilities).

7 Karori passengers travelling to/from the north by bus (e.g. to Johnsonville, , Hutt Valley) will have to walk 200m to transfer. Karori passengers travelling to/from the south will have the option to transfer at Te Aro Park interchange but without the benefit of a slightly faster Waterfront route.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 28 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.3. Public transport interchanges and stops Three primary interchanges:  Wellington Station Interchange  Lambton Central Interchange  Te Aro Park Interchange Other stops are also discussed below. 4.3.1. Wellington Station Interchange The primary role of the Wellington Station Interchange is to provide connections for rail passengers from the north and bus and rail passengers working near Wellington Station, including the parliament precinct. Two options have been identified for the Wellington Station Interchange to accommodate light rail:  Lambton interchange – within existing bus interchange – likely best option for BRT scenarios as provides turning space and transfers currently.  Bunny Street – in front of railway station – this option is appealing, likely better for LRT and ideally would be a one-way loop with stops in front of the station to maximise capacity. This stop could also be a dual-platform terminus stop, with a service track to the area for depot facilities. The same options apply for BRT, although it is more likely the Lambton Interchange location is more appropriate as a terminus for BRT due to the number of vehicle movements that will be required. NB: It is important to minimise transfer costs for rail and bus passengers forced to transfer, especially in situations where transfers are not currently required. 4.3.2. Lambton Central Interchange The Lambton Central Interchange provides connections between the two CBD corridors, allowing passengers to transfer to Golden Mile services to access the main destinations along that corridor or to transfer to Waterfront services for faster access to the south. A concept design for Lambton Central is provided in Appendix E.1. Lambton Central Interchange becomes the main interchange point for buses to split between the Golden Mile and Waterfront corridors. The Waterfront corridor would provide faster and more direct services while the Golden Mile corridor provides access to most trip generators. The route option shown here leaves Featherston, Victoria, Wakefield for vehicle circulation. Further work is required on general traffic impacts. This further work would need to consider alternative options for the CBD road network, including the potential for making Featherston and Victoria streets two-way. If the second corridor is along a Customhouse/Waterloo Quays alignment there would be no interchange between Golden Mile and Waterfront services at Lambton Central. Passengers would transfer at Te Aro Park or Wellington Station instead. 4.3.3. Te Aro Park Interchange The Te Aro Park Interchange provides a southern anchor for the two corridors and serves a similar role to Lambton Interchange. The Te Aro Park interchange is important for maximising travel opportunities and allows passengers to choose between a Golden Mile or Waterfront route based on their requirements. A concept design for Te Aro Park Interchange is shown in Appendix E.2.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 29 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.3.4. Other stops The Golden Mile corridor has additional stops at the Supreme Court, , Civic Centre, Cuba Mall and Courtenay Place as shown in Figure 4.2.  The spacing of stops and interchanges is closer than previous work has identified but reflects important destinations for passengers and very high demand at the northern end of the CBD. The spacing also reflects the greater restrictions on private car access and the importance of retaining access for those that are disabled or cannot walk longer distances.  The Supreme Court stop can be used by both corridors but is primarily required for Karori passengers as this is the closest they can stop to the parliament precinct and Wellington Station (it is not appropriate to divert this route via the station as would increase travel time for passengers). While passengers could transfer between corridors here that is not the primary purpose of this stop. The Golden Mile corridor could potentially skip this stop.  The Courtenay Place stop is important for access to key activities at the southern end of the CBD. These stops could be located at the northern end of Kent/Cambridge Terrace.  The Cable Car, Civic Centre and Cuba Mall stops maximise access but are very closely spaced. These stops could be rationalised further, for example just retaining the Civic Centre stop, especially if LRT was to be introduced along the Golden Mile corridor. If LRT was to operate along the Golden Mile the Cable Car and Cuba Mall stops would likely not be required/justified due to the cost of LRT stations. For BRT these stops could be retained to spread demand and avoid overloading the Civic Centre stop. The Waterfront corridor has only one other stop near Harris Street.  The Harris Street location is chosen to provide even spacing between the two interchanges at either end of this corridor and provides easy access to key destinations in the area including the Wellington Library and Willis Street via Chews Lane.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 30 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.4. Accessibility within the CBD There is a trade-off between accessibility and travel time. The CBD is the main destination for passengers in Wellington and therefore accessibility is critical. It is common for LRT systems to have closer stopping within the CBD compared to outside the CBD, e.g. this is the case in both Portland and Seattle as shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Portland and Seattle have shorter stop spacing within the CBD compared to spacing outside the CBD (BIC 2014).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 31 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.4.1. Golden Mile corridor The Golden Mile corridor stop catchments are shown in Figure 4.4 on page 32 (excluding Cable Car and Manners Mall stops).

Figure 4.4 Golden Mile stop walk catchment (excluding Cable Car and Manners Mall stops)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 32 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

4.4.2. Waterfront corridor The Waterfront corridor stop catchments are shown. The main difference compared to the Golden Mile corridor is the Waterfront stop at Harris Street (replacing Civic Centre) and Queens Wharf (replacing Lambton Central). NB: Most options in this report assume the Waterfront corridor stops at Lambton Central in place of Queens Wharf.

Figure 4.5 Waterfront stop walk catchment

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 33 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5. Network options This chapter sets out the network options that have been developed based on the network approach and assumptions set out in chapter 3. An example of the network design thought process is outlined in Appendix B. The network options are as follows.  Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036)  Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the airport  Sub-option 1A – Mt Victoria tunnel duplication to replace Hataitai tunnel  Sub-option 1B – Ruahine Street extension to replace Moxham Avenue  Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital  Sub-option 2A – Mt Victoria tunnel duplication to replace Hataitai tunnel  Sub-option 2B – Ruahine Street extension to replace Moxham Avenue  Sub-option 2C – LRT to Island Bay  Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  Sub-option 3A – Wellington Road to replace Crawford Street  Sub-option 3B – Zoo tunnel to replace Constable and Crawford Streets  Sub-option 3C – Vivian Street two-way  Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  Sub-option 4A – Wellington Road to replace Crawford Street  Sub-option 4B – Zoo tunnel to replace Constable and Crawford Streets  Sub-option 4C – Tunnel to replace Rugby St  Option 4D – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar For each option, an overview is provided followed by a summary of the key features and service levels. The CBD is a particularly important part of the network and was covered in detail in chapter 4.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 34 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.1. Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036) 5.1.1. Option overview The base case is essentially the Wellington city 2018 bus network with some changes to simplify the network to aid comparison with the other options. Local routes have been simplified but the core network is otherwise aligned with the Wellington city 2018 bus network. Peak services have also been incorporated into core and local routes which have consistent service levels that are held constant across the options. In the base case all bus services continue to use the Golden Mile and there is no additional bus priority or changes to bus stops. The core routes in this option are:  X1 - Island Bay via Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital  X2 Karori - Seatoun via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 Newlands - Lyall Bay via Golden Mile, Taranaki, Hospital, Constable, Kilbirnie  X4 Brooklyn - University via Golden Mile and Station  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station

5.1.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Base Case network is shown in Figure 5.1. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Base Case key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  Assume standard buses on all core routes.  All bus services continue to use the Golden Mile. No  Two core routes are provided from the northern further bus priority is provided and there are no suburbs, Churton Park (X1) and Newlands (X3) to reflect changes to bus stops. the high growth in this area and to ensure the number  Poor reliability and slow travel speeds. of vehicles likely to be entering the CBD from the north are considered in the options, particularly when looking at CBD capacity.  There are no peak-only services which have been incorporated into the core network or local network as appropriate. This is to simplify comparison with the other options.  Full integrated fares and ticketing is assumed. It is also assumed the double-decker and/or other larger capacity vehicles will be run on the core routes.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 35 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.1 Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 36 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.1.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels for this option are summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Base case routes and service levels

Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Low 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 37 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.2. Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the airport 5.2.1. Option overview This option assumes a core BRT network. There are two key changes compared to the base case, the first is the introduction of two primary public transport corridors through the CBD with buses split between the Golden Mile and Waterfront. The second being to include the Airport as part of the core bus network. The overall network structure is otherwise the same as the base case. The core routes in this option are:  X1 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital  X2 BRT Newlands - Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Seatoun via Waterfront, Taranaki, Hospital, Constable, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 5.2.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 1 network is shown in Figure 5.2. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3 Option 1 key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  BRT operates along split corridor plus a direct link between  BRT will likely have to run through mixed traffic Newtown and Kilbirnie, supporting East/West and North/South environment at Newtown and Constable Street. spines introduced in the Wellington city 2018 network.  BRT will likely have to run through mixed traffic  BRT corridors will include the existing Hataitai bus tunnel, environment at Moxham Avenue and Adelaide Road, Taranaki/Wallace Street and Constable Street. Pirie/Elizabeth Streets.  is included on the core network as part of  Conflicts still occur at the Basin Reserve for route route X2 via Hataitai tunnel. X1, although this only affects route X1.  In the CBD, vehicles are split between the Golden Mile and  Impact on Moxham Avenue and Pirie Street Waterfront corridors (46 vehicles per hour per peak direction on residents needs to be traded-off against travel each corridor). Both corridors will be operating at or near time savings from bus priority. Full bus priority capacity. may not be required in these areas as mainly  More eastern suburbs passengers have direct services compared local access traffic only. to options 2-5. This is due to a direct service to Seaton and local  Route X4 from the University diverts via services providing connections to Kilbirnie and not requiring Wellington Station rather than running directly transfers at Miramar. into the CBD which route X3 does. This is because  This option can be delivered on the existing road network as is of the strong demand between Wellington essentially the Wellington 2018 network without additional Station and University but does mean a slower priority measures. A second Mt Victoria tunnel is not required for and less direct journey for passengers travelling BRT as the Hataitai tunnel has sufficient capacity and avoids The south. Basin.  Route X2 operates via the existing Hataitai tunnel and therefore avoids the need for a second Mt Victoria tunnel.  Route X1 requires The Basin to accommodate 16 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak periods. Route X2 operates via Hataitai tunnel and therefore avoids adding another 30 vehicles per hour in each direction during peak periods.  Route X4 from Brooklyn diverts via Taranaki Street rather than running directly along Willis Street. This is to avoid a very slow section of the network and to avoid splitting green time between two public transport corridors at the Boulcott Street intersection. It also enhances the network effect by maximising the potential for transfers at Te Aro Park and allows for use of the faster Waterfront corridor to make up for the longer distance.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 38 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.2 Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the airport

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 39 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.2.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Option 1 routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) BRT Core X1 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Golden Mile, Basin,20.4 Hospital 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 111 2,004 BRT Core X2 BRT Newlands - Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai,22.7 Kilbirnie 19.4 and Miramar 22.0 2 10 15 78 162 3,012 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Seatoun via Waterfront, Taranaki, Hospital,17.5 Constable, 18.220.5 Kilbirnie and 2 Miramar 10 15 64 133 2,314 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,115 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 527 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Lyall Bay - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 39 728 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 493 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local A 31 - Miramar via Kilbirnie 8.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 6 19 353 Bus Local A 32 Strathmore and Miramar 13.6 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 10 32 598 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 188 Bus Local B 43B - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 229

Total 290 723 13,306 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 40 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.2.4. Sub-options 5.2.4.1. Sub-option 1A – Mt Victoria tunnel duplication to replace Hataitai tunnel This option considers the use of a duplicate Mt Victoria tunnel for express services and the existing Hataitai bus tunnel for other services, refer Figure 5.3. Please note demand must be sufficient to justify running a separate express pattern as well as a local bus service on Moxham Avenue. Key features of this option are:  Route X2 between Newlands and the Airport will use Mt Victoria tunnel and operate as an express service with no stops between Kilbirnie and Te Aro Interchange.  Route X8 will provide an all stopping service between Kilbirnie and Lambton Interchange picking up the Hataitai and Mt Victoria catchments. An express operating pattern could also be delivered via the Hataitai bus tunnel and in this case any bus priority measures along the shared route would benefit both the express and all stopping services. This Sub-option therefore does not perform as well as Option 1.

Figure 5.3 Option 1A Mt Victoria tunnel duplication to replace Hataitai tunnel

Table 5.5 Option 1A routes and service levels (changes from Option 1 highlighted) Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) BRT Core X1 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Golden Mile, Basin,20.4 Hospital 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 110 2,001 BRT Core X2 BRT Newlands - Airport via Golden Mile, Mt Victoria23.2 tunnel, 19.4 Kilbirnie 22.1 and Miramar 2 10 15 80 165 3,075 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Seatoun via Waterfront, Taranaki, Hospital,17.5 Constable, 18.220.5 Kilbirnie and 2 Miramar 10 15 64 133 2,313 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 526 Bus Local A X8 Kilbirnie - Lambton Central via Waterfront and Hataitai5.5 21.1 21.1 10 20 30 4 13 240 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Lyall Bay - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 39 728 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 494 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local A 31 Rongotai - Miramar via Kilbirnie 8.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 6 19 353 Bus Local A 32 Strathmore and Miramar 13.6 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 10 32 598 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 188 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 228

Total 296 739 13,608 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Low 2036 demand scenarios. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 41 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.2.4.2. Sub-option 1B – Ruahine Street extension to replace Moxham Avenue This option widens and extends Ruahine Street to provide dedicated bus lanes connecting to the existing Hataitai bus tunnel. This option could also work in conjunction with a duplicate of Mt Victoria tunnel for private cars. Bus services would no longer operate along Moxham Avenue. Key features:  Avoids impact on Moxham Ave but requires widening of Ruahine Street to 4 lanes (2 bus priority)  Bus stops will be located at Goa Street and Hataitai Village.  Route X2 will run along Ruahine Street instead of Moxham Avenue and connect via a new short link road to the Hataitai bus tunnel, as shown in Figure 5.4. This will require upgrades to Ruahine Street and the purchase of three properties behind the Hatatai Shops for the new link road. This option does not require a separate local route on Moxham Ave (which was required for Sub- option 1A) as the stops will pick up this catchment. The express operating pattern in Sub-option 1B could also be applied to this route should there be sufficient demand (e.g. at peak times). Should the LGWM recommendations include changes to State Highway 1 and the one-way roading system then the following changes could also be considered:  On the western side of the hill Route X2 could run down Pirie Street instead of Elizabeth Street but this would require regrading of Pirie Street as the lower end is currently 12.1% gradient to an average gradient of around 8.3%.  Route X4 from Brooklyn operates two-way along Willis Street, instead of the one-way pair with Victoria Street. Route X4 will join the Golden Mile corridor from Willis Street.

Figure 5.4 Option 1B Ruahine Street extension to replace Moxham Avenue

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 42 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.3. Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital 5.3.1. Option overview This option assumes two LRT routes running along the Golden Mile corridor in the CBD, with bus services along the Waterfront corridor. The first LRT route will run between Wellington Station and the Zoo via Kent/Cambridge Terrace and the Hospital. The second LRT route will run between Wellington Station and the Airport via the Hataitai bus tunnel, Kilbirnie and Miramar. All other core routes are assumed to be BRT. The core routes in this option are:  X1 LRT Newtown and Zoo via Golden Mile, Basin and Hospital  X2 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Newtown  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station  X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay  X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 5.3.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 1 network is shown in Figure 5.5. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6 Option 2 key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  Split LRT route to Zoo (X1) and Airport via Hataitai (X2)  Waterfront corridor is required to carry a similar operating along the Golden Mile corridor within the number of vehicles as currently operating on the CBD. Golden Mile (130 buses per hour).  All buses operate along the Waterfront corridor in the  Routes X3 and X5 both operate along Wallace Street CBD and service both Te Aro Park and Lambton Central and will conflict with SH1 at Taranaki Street with 46 interchanges. buses per hour. The LRT route X1 will operate via the  In the CBD, there will be 28 LRT vehicles per hour on the Basin and also conflict with SH1 but with only 12 Golden Mile corridor and 92 BRT vehicles per hour on vehicles per hour. the Waterfront corridor.  Eastern suburbs required to transfer from bus to LRT at  Route X3 connects Kilbirnie and Hospital via Constable Miramar to access Kilbirnie or the rest of the network. Street and provides service along Wallace Street.  Further information is required on the travel time,  Route X2 via existing Hataitai tunnel, which may need amenity and cost trade-off between duplicate Mt an upgrade and along existing Pirie/Moxham St bus Victoria tunnel route and existing Hataitai bus tunnel. route. This avoids cost of addition Mt Vic tunnel but will Recommend an economic evaluation. have travel time trade-off and impacts on local amenity, particularly in Pirie Street area.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 43 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.5 Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 44 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.3.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7 Option 2 routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Newtown and Zoo via Golden Mile, Basin and 5.8Hospital 17.5 17.5 3.75 10 15 12 35 564 LRT Core X2 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and9.6 Miramar 21.4 21.4 5 10 15 12 44 847 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Newtown 15.2 18.1 20.9 2 10 15 56 115 2,008 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay 20.6 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 112 2,016 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central 13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,783 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 526 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 722 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 494 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.3 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 485 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 5.8 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 3 9 166 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 6.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 3 9 173 Total 278 720 13,130 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 45 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.3.4. Sub-options 5.3.4.1. Sub-option 2A – Mt Victoria tunnel duplication to replace Hataitai tunnel This option considers the use of a duplicate Mt Victoria tunnel instead of the existing Hataitai bus tunnel for the second LRT route. It will avoid property, parking and amenity impacts on Moxham Avenue and Pirie Street but will require widening of Ruahine Street and the new tunnel will need to be dedicated to LRT. An additional core bus route is also required to service the Hataitai catchment and will utilise the Hatataitai bus tunnel. Option 2A is shown in Figure 5.6. The Option 2A routes are summarised in Table 5.8. Key features of this option are:  LRT route X2 along Ruahine and duplicate Mt Victoria tunnel.  New route X8 serving Hataitai catchment. This scenario is only possible if the Mt Victoria tunnel is duplicated for LRT.

Figure 5.6 Option 2A LRT 2036 Split spine Mt Victoria

Table 5.8 Option 2A routes and service levels (changes from Option 2 highlighted) Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Newtown and Zoo via Golden Mile, Basin and 5.8Hospital 17.5 17.5 3.75 10 15 12 35 564 LRT Core X2 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Mt Victoria tunnel, Kilbirnie10.2 and 21.4 Miramar 21.4 5 10 15 13 46 896 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Newtown and Kilbirnie 15.2 18.1 20.9 2 10 15 56 115 2,008 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay 20.6 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 112 2,016 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central 13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,783 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 526 Bus Local A X8 Kilbirnie - Lambton Central via Waterfront and Hataitai5.5 21.1 21.1 10 20 30 4 13 240 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 722 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 494 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.3 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 485 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 5.8 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 3 9 166 Total 280 725 13,245 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Low 2036 demand scenarios. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 46 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.3.4.2. Sub-option 2B – Ruahine Street extension to replace Moxham Avenue This option is the same as Option 1B for BRT (refer section 5.2.4.2) but for LRT instead. LRT stops are assumed at Goa Street and Hataitai shops avoiding the need for an additional core bus route via Moxham Avenue.

5.3.4.3. Sub-option 2C – LRT to Island Bay This option would run route X1 along the route X5 alignment south of the Hospital. Route X5 which operates from Churton Park would terminate at Lambton Central. The local Southgate and Houghton Bay routes would extend through to John Street and provide services for the zoo and Newtown south.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 47 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.4. Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar 5.4.1. Option overview This option assumes a single LRT route running along the Golden Mile in the CBD. The route will run between Wellington Station and the Airport via Kent/Cambridge Terrace, Hospital, Constable Street, Crawford Street, Kilbirnie and Miramar. All other core routes are assumed to be BRT. The core routes in this option are:  X1 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital, Constable, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Waterfront, Hataitai and Kilbirnie  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station  X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Waterfront and Taranaki  X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central via Waterfront  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 5.4.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 3 network is shown in Figure 5.7. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.10.

Table 5.9 Option 3 key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  LRT operates along single corridor  LRT will likely to run through mixed traffic environment at Newtown between Wellington Station and Airport and Constable Street. via Hospital and Constable Street.  BRT will likely have to run through mixed traffic environment at  BRT operates on both the Island Bay (via Moxham Avenue and Pirie/Elizabeth Streets. Taranaki/Wallace Streets) and Hataitai (via  The green route does not stop at Te Aro Interchange as required to Hataitai bus tunnel) corridors. operate via Cable/Wakefield streets to avoid conflicts with LRT  In the CBD, there will be 24 light rail (would benefit from two-way Vivian Street). vehicles per hour on the Golden Mile  Waterfront corridor is required to carry a similar number of vehicles corridor and around 86 buses per hour on as currently operating on the Golden Mile (86 buses per hour). the Waterfront corridor.  Eastern suburbs required to transfer from bus to LRT at Miramar to  Constable Street used for LRT route to access Kilbirnie or the rest of the network. avoid need for tunnel between the Zoo  and Kilbirnie (refer variation 3.1 below). Route X1 provides a slower service from the Airport and Kilbirnie to This could have a significant impact on the CBD than Option 1 due to operating via Newtown. local properties and car parking  Route X3 does not stop at Te Aro Interchange to avoid using the (depending on level of priority) and will same right-of-way as LRT. Route X3 would benefit from two-way also impact on reliability and travel times. operation along Vivian Street provided it can also operate on the  Route X1 provides a single LRT spine 12% grade of Pirie Street. connecting more destinations on a single  Further information is required on the travel time and cost trade-off route. between Constable Street and Zoo tunnel routes. Recommend an  Route X3 provides fast direct service economic evaluation. between Kilbirnie and CBD, which will be  Route X3 does not stop at Te Aro Park interchange (one block away) preferred by passengers who are not to avoid running in same right of way as LRT. Route X3 cannot already on route X1 from forced transfer. operate along Courtenay Place as this is required for LRT and running  Golden Mile corridor is required to carry a LRT and bus within the same carriageway should be avoided where similar number of vehicles as currently possible, it would also require an extra turning movement at Te Aro (120 buses per hour). Interchange for the bus to access the waterfront from there, which would reduce green time for all public transport services.  Route X3 would benefit from a two-way Vivian Street as this would allow route X3 to run from Pirie Street to Taranaki Street along Vivian Street to access the Te Aro Interchange. Without a two-way Vivian Street this route will have to operate along the waterfront and not service Te Aro Interchange.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 48 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.7 Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 49 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.4.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10 Option 3 routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital, Constable,10.5 Kilbirnie 20.5 and 20.5 Miramar 2.5 10 15 27 66 1,231 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Waterfront, Hataitai and14.4 Kilbirnie 18.1 20.8 2.5 10 15 43 97 1,696 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Waterfront and Taranaki20.6 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 112 2,016 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central via Waterfront 13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,783 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 527 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 721 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 493 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 486 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 189 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 229

Total 270 692 12,714 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 50 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.4.4. Sub-options 5.4.4.1. Sub-option 3A – Wellington Road to replace Crawford Street This option uses a more direct route along Wellington Road utilising the properties already purchased by NZTA. This Sub-option can also apply to Option 4.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 51 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.4.4.2. Sub-option 3B - Zoo tunnel to replace Constable and Crawford Streets This option uses a new tunnel between the Zoo and Kilbirnie. A new local bus services will pick up the Constable Road catchment. This Sub-option can also apply to Option 4. The Option 3A network is shown in Figure 5.8. Key features of this option are:  LRT catchment now includes Newtown and Zoo  Requires new 750m long single-track tunnel between Zoo and Kilbirnie. Cost and engineering feasibility unknown, although likely in same ballpark as second Mt Victoria tunnel.  Requires an additional local bus route to pick up Constable Street. This can be extension of another local services to operate between Kilbirnie and John Street turnaround.  Local bus routes to Southgate and Houghton Bay can terminate at the Zoo with transfer to LRT. Results in small reduction in number of bus movements in Hospital and John Street vicinity. An economic evaluation of this option is recommended.

Figure 5.8 Option 3 (left) and 3B (right) showing change in route for Zoo tunnel

Table 5.11 Option 3B routes and service levels (changes from Option 3 highlighted) Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital, Zoo 10.7tunnel, Kilbirnie 22.7 and 22.7 Miramar 2.5 10 15 25 61 1,260 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Waterfront, Hataitai and14.4 Kilbirnie 18.1 20.8 2.5 10 15 43 97 1,696 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Waterfront and Taranaki20.6 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 112 2,016 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central via Waterfront 13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,783 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 526 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Hospital - Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade14.6 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 11 34 644 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 722 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 494 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.3 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 485 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 188 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 228

Total 270 693 12,851 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 52 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.4.4.3. Sub-option 3C – Vivian Street two-way This option will assume buses from the Hataitai bus tunnel will run along Pirie Street and Vivian Street to Taranaki Street to service the Te Aro Park Interchange (in the base option these services will operate along the length of the waterfront and stop one-block away from Te Aro Interchange). Route X3 would benefit from two-way Vivian Street as this would allow the route to operate along Taranaki Street and connect at Te Aro Park. Two-way Vivian Street with SH1 moved to a single alignment would reduce vehicle conflicts on Kent/Cambridge Terrace and allow the green route to operate via Vivian/Taranaki streets and stop at Te Aro Park Interchange. In Option 3 route X3 is required to run via the waterfront and stop at the northern end of Taranaki Street (Cable or Wakefield Streets) and therefore not allow easy connection to other services at Te Aro Park which is at least 150-250m away.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 53 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.5. Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar 5.5.1. Option overview This option assumes a single LRT route running along the Waterfront in the CBD. The route will run between Wellington Station and the Airport via Taranaki Street, Rugby Street, Hospital, Constable Street, Crawford Street, Kilbirnie and Miramar. All other core routes are assumed to be BRT. There will be no bus services along the southern end of Kent/Cambridge Terrace. The core routes in this option are:  X1 LRT Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki, Hospital, Constable, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Golden Mile, Hataitai and Kilbirnie  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Golden Mile and Station  X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Golden Mile  X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central via Golden Mile  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 5.5.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 4 network is shown in Figure 5.9. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12 Option 4 key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  LRT to operate via Rugby Street and Taranaki Street  Golden Mile corridor is required to carry a similar instead of Kent/Cambridge Terrace. number of buses as the base case (86 buses per hour).  Single LRT route from Airport to CBD via Newtown and  Catchment at southern end of Kent/Cambridge Terrace Rugby/Taranaki Street with LRT operating along the has no service due to buses picking up Wallace Street Waterfront corridor in the CBD. All buses operate along catchment. the Golden Mile corridor.  Conflict with SH1 at Taranaki Street for routes X1 and  In the CBD, there will be 24 light rail vehicles per hour X5 which have 32 vehicles per hour between them. on the Waterfront corridor and 86 buses per hour on There is also a potential conflict with SH1 at the Basin the Golden Mile corridor. due to the use of Rugby Street.  Picks up catchment at southern end of Taranaki Street  Longer section of LRT/BRT overlap along Adelaide Road with LRT, although this is also covered by bus.  Eastern suburbs required to transfer from bus to LRT at Miramar to access Kilbirnie or the rest of the network.  Routes X4 and X5 require extra turning movements onto the Golden Mile corridor which will reduce green time for public transport services. This is compared to option 1, 2 and 3 where no turning movements are required at Te Aro Interchange which allows close to 50% green time for routes and pedestrians.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 54 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.9 Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 55 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.5.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.13, based on the service level considerations for the base case (refer section 5.1.3). Please note the following additional points:  Speeds are based on a high-level review of real time information on key routes in Wellington and adjusted for different levels of priority based on the infrastructure assumptions and travel time impacts discussed in chapter 6.  Headways are based on the minimum service level assumptions set out in section 3.4 but increased where required to meet the Medium 2036 demand scenario, as discussed in section 3.4.

Table 5.13 Option 4 routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki, Hospital, Constable,10.3 Kilbirnie 21.2 21.2and Miramar 2.5 10 15 26 63 1,213 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Golden Mile, Hataitai and14.4 Kilbirnie 17.7 20.5 2.5 10 15 43 98 1,696 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Golden Mile and Station10.7 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 21 58 1,050 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Golden Mile 20.6 17.7 21.3 3.75 10 15 42 113 2,021 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central via Golden Mile13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,783 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 526 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 722 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 494 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.3 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 485 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 188 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 228

Total 268 689 12,632 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 56 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.5.4. Sub-options Sub-options 3A and 3B from above can also apply to Option 4. Two further Sub-options are set out below 5.5.4.1. Sub-option 4A - Wellington Road to replace Crawford Street This option uses a more direct route along Wellington Road utilising the properties already purchased by NZTA. The impacts are the same as sub-option 3B which is set out in section 5.4.4.1.

5.5.4.2. Sub-option 4B - Zoo tunnel to replace Constable and Crawford Streets This option uses a new tunnel between the Zoo and Kilbirnie. The impacts are the same as sub- option 3B which is set out in section 5.4.4.2.

5.5.4.3. Sub-option 4C – Tunnel to replace Rugby St This option uses a new tunnel between Taranaki Street and Adelaide Road, as shown in Figure 5.10. A new local bus services will pick up the Constable Road catchment. Key features:  The Rugby Street tunnel would ease some corners but would require crossing of SH1 at Taranaki Street.  Route X1 has only one stop on Adelaide Road that is located some distance from the Basin Reserve and schools. Although an additional stop could be located at the tunnel portal or the portal moved closer to The Basin.

Figure 5.10 Option 4 (left) and 4A (right) showing change in route to accommodate tunnels

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 57 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.6. Option 4D – Revised Option 4 aligning with package evaluation 5.6.1. Option overview This option is based on Option 4 but has been revised to align with the option put forward for package evaluation. Option 4D assumes a single LRT route running along the Waterfront in the CBD, with stops at Bunny Street, Queens Wharf, Waterfront and Te Aro Park. The route will run via Taranaki Street with grade-separation at Bunny Street and a tunnel through to Rugby Street. It will then run via Adelaide Road to the Hospital, Newtown Shops and Zoo with a tunnel under Mt Albert connecting to Kilbirnie, Miramar Shops and Airport. All other core routes are assumed to be BRT, with the Island Bay route running via The Basin and Kent/Cambridge and local buses providing services along Wallace Street and Taranaki Street. The core routes in this option are:  X1 LRT Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki, Zoo, Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Hataitai  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University  X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via The Basin  X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 5.6.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 4D network is shown in Figure 5.11. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.14.

Table 5.14 Option 4D key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  LRT to operate via Rugby Street and Taranaki Street  Golden Mile corridor is required to carry a similar instead of Kent/Cambridge Terrace. Assumes grade number of buses as the base case (86 BRT buses plus 12 separation from SH1 at Bunny Street and a tunnel from local buses per hour). Taranaki Street to Rugby Street (shown on street via  LRT and BRT services duplicated along Adelaide Road Memorial Park in map). and required separate stops.  Single LRT route from Airport to CBD via Newtown and  LRT and local bus services duplicated along Taranaki Rugby/Taranaki Street with LRT operating along the Street and required separate stops. Waterfront corridor in the CBD. All buses operate along  the Golden Mile corridor. Wallace Street, Massey University and Wellington high serviced by local buses only (not on core corridor).  BRT corridor from island Bay via Kent/Cambridge  Terrace duplicates LRT service along Adelaide Road. Eastern suburbs required to transfer from bus to LRT at Local bus services operate via Wallace Street. Miramar to access Kilbirnie or the rest of the network.   In the CBD, there will be 24 light rail vehicles per hour Routes X4 and X5 require extra turning movements on the Waterfront corridor and 86 buses per hour on onto the Golden Mile corridor which will reduce green the Golden Mile corridor plus 12 additional local buses. time for public transport services. This is compared to option 1, 2 and 3 which no turning movements are required at Te Aro Interchange which allows close to 50% green time for routes and pedestrians.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 58 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.11 Option 4D – Revised Option 4 aligning with package evaluation

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 59 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.6.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.15, based on the service level considerations for the base case (refer section 5.1.3). Please note the following additional points:  Speeds are based on a high-level review of real time information on key routes in Wellington and adjusted for different levels of priority based on the infrastructure assumptions and travel time impacts discussed in chapter 6.  Headways are based on the minimum service level assumptions set out in section 3.4 but increased where required to meet the Medium 2036 demand scenario, as discussed in section 3.4.

Table 5.15 Option 4D routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki, Zoo, Miramar 10.1 21.2 21.2 2.5 10 15 26 62 1,194 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Hataitai 14.4 17.7 20.5 2.5 10 15 43 98 1,698 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University 10.7 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 21 57 1,045 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via The Basin 20.8 17.7 21.3 3.75 10 15 42 114 2,036 BRT Core X6 BRT Newlands - Lambton Central 13.5 18.0 22.3 2 10 15 50 100 1,787 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 527 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 13.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 374 Bus Local A 21A Hospital - Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 14.6 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 11 34 645 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 721 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 493 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 486 Bus Local B 41 Wgtn Station - Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 11.7 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 6 18 337 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Wgtn Station - Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 10.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 5 16 294 Bus Local B 43B Wgtn Station - Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 11.6 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 6 18 335

Total 27571113,058 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 60 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.7. Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar 5.7.1. Option overview This option is the same as Option 3 but extends the LRT line from Wellington Station to Newlands via the Hutt Road and . This option is investigated due to the large number of buses required in the CBD under Options 3 and 4 due to the LRT services requiring all buses to operate along a single corridor. A significant proportion of these buses are from the north and travelling only part-way through the CBD to avoid additional transfers on the CBD fringe and due to LRT, there are no routes to the south or east where these services can continue as through routes. This is not an issue for Option 1 as the BRT network provides for all services to operate as through-routes to balance vehicle demand. The core routes in this option are:  X1 LRT Newlands - Airport via Hutt Road, Golden Mile, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Waterfront and Hataitai  X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station  X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Waterfront and Taranaki  X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station

5.7.2. Key features and issues/trade-offs The Option 5 network is shown in Figure 5.12. The key features and issues/trade-offs of this scenario are summarised in Table 5.17.

Table 5.16 Option 4 key features and issues/trade-offs Key features Issues and trade-offs  Allows through-routing of LRT north of Wellington  Ngauranga Gorge gradient may be an issue for LRT. The Station to reduce number of buses required in the CBD average gradient in the gorge is 6.9%8 to meet demand from the northern suburbs.  An alternative mode/vehicle type such as the CRRC ART (a LRT bus) may be suitable for this option.  Potential to link Lincolnshire Farms development with CBD.

8 Refer https://veloviewer.com/segment/3827894/Ngauranga+Gorge+Descent.s

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 61 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 5.12 Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 62 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.7.3. Routes and service levels The routes and service levels assumed for this option are set out in Table 5.17, based on the service level considerations for Option 3 (refer section 5.4). Please note the following additional points:  Route X1 extended to Newlands and route X6 deleted and replaced with route 29.  For Route X1 assume average speed 40km/h north of Wellington Station due to higher speed environment.

Table 5.17 Option 5 routes and service levels Line Average speed Headway (mins) Annual resources length Peak Day Peak Hours Kms Mode Service type Line/route (kms) (km/h) (km/h) Peak Day Evening vehicles (#000) (#000) LRT Core X1 LRT Newlands - Airport via Hutt Road, Golden Mile,19.3 Basin, 29.5Hospital, 21.4 Kilbirnie 2.5 and Miramar 10 15 35 101 2,272 BRT Core X3 BRT Karori - Lyall Bay via Waterfront and Hataitai 14.4 18.1 20.8 2.5 10 15 43 97 1,696 BRT Core X4 BRT Brooklyn - University via Waterfront and Station11.4 18.0 21.7 3.75 10 15 23 61 1,118 BRT Core X5 BRT Churton Park - Island Bay via Waterfront and Taranaki20.6 17.9 21.5 3.75 10 15 41 112 2,016 TRN Core X7 TRN Johnsonville - Wellington Station 10.3 18.0 22.5 15 15 15 6 27 527 Bus Local B 14 Wilton 6.4 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 185 Bus Local B 15 Khandallah and Ngaio 12.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 7 20 373 Bus Local A 21 Kilbirnie - Highbury via Oriental Parade 12.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 28 536 Bus Local B 22 Rongotai - Johnsonville via Roseneath and Ngaio 25.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 13 38 721 Bus Local A 23 Johnsonville West - Woodridge 11.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 493 Bus Local B 24 Karori South 7.2 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 209 Bus Local B 25 Hataitai - University via Oriental Bay 7.1 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 205 Bus Local A 29 Grenada - Newlands 4.0 18.0 21.9 10 20 30 3 10 176 Bus Local A 32 Seatoun - Miramar Heights 6.2 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 5 15 276 Bus Local A 33 Strathmore and Miramar 11.0 18.0 22.5 10 20 30 9 26 486 Bus Local B 41 Kowhai Park - Brooklyn - Mornington 8.0 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 230 Bus Local B 42 Happy Valley - Brooklyn & Island Bay 7.3 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 11 212 Bus Local B 43A Southgate - Island Bay & Zoo 6.5 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 10 189 Bus Local B 43B Houghton Bay - Island Bay & Zoo 7.9 18.0 22.5 15 30 60 4 12 229

Total 231 637 12,148 Notes: (a) Average speed is based on an assessment of potential priority measures and travel times (refer chapter 6); (b) Peak headways/vehicles per hour assume the Medium 2036 demand scenario. Day and evening headways/vehicles per hour are policy headways and do not take account of potential demand (refer section 3.6).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 63 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.8. Other considerations 5.8.1. Options for east/west routes via Mt Victoria There are two options for east/west routes via Mt Victoria as follows: 1. Mt Victoria tunnel duplication – this option likely has fewer impacts on property and parking and will provide a marginally faster route. It requires a new tunnel and adds to conflicts between general traffic and public transport at The Basin. This option also requires a parallel bus route via Hataitai to pick up the local catchment. 2. Hataitai bus tunnel upgrade – this option will likely have a greater impact on property and parking, especially around Pirie and Elizabeth Streets. An option to extend Ruahine Street could reduce property and parking impacts for Hataitai. This option can provide a fast, dedicated corridor with a larger catchment than the Mt Vic tunnel option. It also avoids the need to run a second parallel bus route but there are challenges around grade and amenity that need further investigation. The Hataitai bus tunnel upgrade option was ruled out by the PTSS at the long-list stage due to property and parking impacts. A subsequent technical note documented the reasons for this decision in detail (AECOM 2014a). The AECOM technical note states that the existing Hataitai bus tunnel can accommodate a minimum of 58 vehicles per hour in each direction. Based on this analysis it can be concluded that the existing Hataitai bus tunnel provides sufficient capacity for both BRT and LRT options. Assuming a route via Hataitai bus tunnel it may also be possible to reduce the impact to properties in Hataitai by running BRT and bus services along new lanes on Ruahine Street. These lanes could be extended north to connect with the Hataitai bus tunnel impacting a limited number of properties (refer Figure 5.13). An interchange facility would be provided at Hataitai with additional stops located at Goa Street therefore maintaining Hataitai coverage and avoiding the need for a separate local bus service.

Figure 5.13 Potential Ruahine Street extension to north (required land-take shown in orange)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 64 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

There are still challenges travelling through Mt Victoria with the gradient and width of Pirie Street being significant constraints, particularly for LRT (refer Figure 5.14). The existing bus route via Pirie and Elizabeth Street has gradients of 7.1% and 8.5%. Maximum gradients depend on the system, for example City of Edmonton design guidelines state that LRT gradients should not exceed 5.5% but gradients of up to 7.5% are acceptable for short distances (less than 125m)9. The TCRP Federal Guidelines (US) state that gradients of up to 6% for short sections entered at speed should be possible and that grades of up to 10% are possible but will require specific design 10.

Figure 5.14 Pirie Street contours

13m

6m 141m 7.1% 21m 23m 124m 24m 12.1% gradient

42m 212m 8.5% gradient

5.8.2. Options for east/west routes via Newtown This section looks at options for access through Newtown via either Constable Street and Crawford Road (or Wellington Road) or a new Mt Albert tunnel between the Wellington Zoo and Kilbirnie. 5.8.2.1. Constable Street route Constable Street remains an important connector between Kilbirnie and Newtown in all network options. Constable Street provides the main cross city connection between Kilbirnie and Newtown and is part of the core network in all options, although if a Zoo tunnel is provided for LRT only local buses would operate along Constable Street. 5.8.2.2. Mt Albert tunnel (Zoo to Kilbirnie) route The Mt Albert tunnel would provide a single or dual lane/track tunnel between the Wellington Zoo and Kilbirnie. One portal would be located near the Owen Street/Manchester Street intersection and the second at Coutts (preferred) or Cruikshank Streets, as shown in Figure 5.15. This tunnel is approximately 740m long, compared to a second Mt Victoria tunnel of 640m and the existing Pirie Street tunnel which is approximately 450m long. This means a single tunnel is likely to

9 Refer City of Edmonton General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton. 10 Refer TCRP Report 57 Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 65 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd have a higher cost than a tunnel at Mt Victoria. A single lane tunnel will have a lower vehicle capacity than the Hataitai bus tunnel due to being almost twice as long. This option was initially compelling as it provides for a wider range of journey options (e.g. rapid transit link between Kilbirnie and hospital – such connections are not so important now but could be in the future) and increases the residential catchment of the rapid transit corridor. This would be at the expense of a cross-town service along Constable Street which is an important local catchment, it is also a longer and less direct route compared to the Hataitai/Mt Victoria tunnel options.

Figure 5.15 Potential Mt Albert tunnel route

5.8.3. Kilbirnie to Airport route options Three options considered for Kilbirnie to Airport route, as shown in Table 5.18. Option 3 is preferred option as this provides direct services for commuters from Miramar and reliable services for the Airport. It is also a more suitable location for a terminus due to the longer dwell times required for passengers to load and unload their baggage.

Table 5.18 Options considered for Kilbirnie to Airport route Option Discussion 1 Kilbirnie to Airport via  About 2.5km or 6 mins IVT (avg 25 km/h) tunnel under runway  All local services connect at Kilbirnie 2 Kilbirnie to Airport via  About 3 km or 6 mins. Same travel time to Option A due to higher speed section Sports Arena and Calabar (avg 30km/h). Road  All local services connect at Kilbirnie 3 Kilbirnie to Airport via  About 4 km or 9 mins IVT (avg. 27.5km/h). This is 3 mins longer than Option A or B Sports Arena and but services an additional catchment (Miramar) and saves the cost of a tunnel. Miramar  Local services connect at Kilbirnie or Miramar  This option provides faster and more direct access to the CBD for people living in Miramar. Most people travelling to the airport won’t make that same trip every day, compared to people living in Miramar) and given the amount of waiting required for flights 3 mins additional running time would be unlikely to make a significant difference to travel decisions from the airport, particularly if the travel time was reliable.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 66 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

5.9. Summary of options 5.9.1. Networks for further consideration Potential corridor alignments and stop locations are set out in Appendix F for the following options:  Option 3 – LRT via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Adelaide, Constable St, Kilbirnie, Miramar, Airport with BRT on other corridors  Option 4D – LRT via Waterfront, Taranaki, Adelaide, Mt Albert zoo tunnel, Kilbirnie, Miramar, Airport with BRT on other corridors The other options (Options 1 and 2) are not set out here due to time constraints. It is recommended that potential corridor alignment and stop locations also be identified for Option 1 which is a BRT network providing similar levels priority and stop facilities as for LRT In Options 3 and 4. Option 2 has not been considered further at this stage. It is noted that the LGWM team has picked Option 4D for the current package evaluation round which is why it is set out here. Option 3 is also provided as it resolves a number of issues arising in Option 4D, although has a number of other trade-offs that need to be considered. 5.9.2. Key corridor trade-offs The following provides a summary of the key corridor trade-offs for the BRT/LRT corridors under the network options considered:  LRT on Golden Mile vs Waterfront  LRT via Taranaki St vs Kent/Cambridge Terrace  LRT via Constable Street vs Zoo tunnel  BRT/LRT via Mt Victoria tunnel vs Hataitai tunnel 5.9.2.1. LRT on Golden Mile vs Waterfront

Table 5.19 LRT on Golden Mile vs Waterfront LRT on Golden Mile LRT on Waterfront Description  LRT stops:  LRT stops: o Wellington Station o Wellington Station o Lambton Central o Lambton Central o Civic Centre (Willis at Mercer) o Waterfront (Frank Kitts Park) o Te Aro Park o Te Aro Park o Courtenay Place o Taranaki St  Lower speed limit (30 km/h)  Higher speed limit (30-50 km/h)  Travel time 6.5 mins (currently 11 mins but  Travel time 5.5 mins (currently 11 mins but highly variable) highly variable)  Buses on Waterfront (86-92 buses per hour  Buses on Golden Mile (86-92 buses per hour compared to 130 now). compared to 130 now).  Bus stop at Supreme Court. Required for  Bus stop at Supreme Court. Required for Karori Karori passengers. passengers.  Potential bus stops at Cable Car and Cuba Mall on Golden Mile to balance demand. Comparison  Higher amenity on Golden Mile due to buses  Lower amenity on Golden Mile due to number using Waterfront corridor. of buses required on second corridor.  Civic Centre stop maximises access to Willis  Waterfront stop reduces access to Willis and and Manners Streets area. Manners Street.  LRT on Golden Mile better connects with  LRT on Waterfront better connects with Kent/Cambridge corridor. Taranaki St corridor. Alternatives  LRT on the Golden Mile better connects with  LRT on Waterfront better connects with Kent/Cambridge corridor. Taranaki St corridor.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 67 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

 The Golden Mile corridor could connect with  The Waterfront corridor could connect with the the Taranaki Street corridor but with the Kent/Cambridge corridor but with the following following trade-offs: trade-offs: o Additional turning movements required at o Additional turning movements required at Taranaki/Courtenay intersection. Taranaki/Courtenay intersection. o Reduced green time for public transport, o Reduced green time for public transport, pedestrians and general traffic (compared to pedestrians and general traffic (compared to no turning movements). no turning movements). o Most passengers required to cross the road o Most passengers required to cross the road for transfers. for transfers.

5.9.2.2. LRT via Taranaki St vs Kent/Cambridge Terrace

Table 5.20 LRT via Taranaki St vs Kent/Cambridge Terrace LRT via Taranaki St LRT via Kent/Cambridge Terrace Description  Assumes Memorial Park/Tory Street grade-  Assumes Basin Reserve at-grade crossing of SH1 separated crossing of SH1 and route via Rugby via two-way western route. Street.  LRT stops:  LRT stops: o Courtenay Place o Taranaki St at Vivian o Kent/Cambridge at Vivian o The Basin (top of Adelaide Rd or Rugby St) o The Basin (top of Adelaide Rd or Rugby St)

Comparison  LRT stop central to Victoria/Cuba and Te Aro  BRT stops central to Victoria/Cuba and Te Aro growth precincts growth precincts and LRT stop service Te Aro  No BRT at Kent/Cambridge Terrace at Vivian growth precinct. stop. Or no BRT at Massey University and  LRT at Kent/Cambridge Terrace at Vivian stop Wallace Street stops. and BRT at Massey University and Wallace  BRT and LRT share corridor along Taranaki St Street stops. and require separate stops at Vivian Street  BRT and LRT share short section of corridor intersection. along Kent/Cambridge but no impact on stops.  SH1 conflict at Taranaki St. Options to address:  SH1 conflict at Basin Reserve. Options to o via Memorial Park – amenity/property address: impacts (SH1 impact at Rugby St) o bridge or tunnel – impacts on amenity/cost o at grade – impacts on other traffic o at grade – impacts on other traffic movements (plus new tunnel cost) movements  Potential for urban renewal and land value  Potential for urban renewal and land value uplift. uplift. Alternatives  Replace Memorial Park/Tory Street crossing  Replace Basin at-grade crossing with grade- with Taranaki St crossing of SH1 and tunnel to separation. Adelaide Road. Taranaki St crossing could be at-grade or grade-separated. Further work on engineering feasibility required.

5.9.2.3. LRT via Constable Street vs Zoo tunnel

Table 5.21 LRT via Constable Street vs Zoo tunnel LRT via Constable Street LR via Mt Albert zoo tunnel Description  LRT via Constable Street and Crawford Road.  LRT via Newtown and Mt Albert zoo tunnel. Comparison  Serves Constable St catchment better.  Serves southern Newtown catchment better.  Constable St becomes local bus.  300m shorter route, slower speeds through  300m longer route, faster speed through Constable/Crawford. tunnel, 30 sec faster trip.  Some mixing with general traffic or property  Some mixing with general traffic or property and parking impacts through Newtown centre and parking impacts through Newtown centre. and along Constable St/Crawford Rd.  No tunnel cost but regrading may be required  New tunnel cost. on parts of Constable/Crawford.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 68 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

 Potential for urban renewal and land value  Potential for urban renewal and land value uplift around Newtown east. uplift around Newtown south. Alternatives  Crawford Street vs Wellington Road.

5.9.2.4. BRT/LRT via Mt Victoria tunnel vs Hataitai tunnel

Table 5.22 BRT/LRT via Mt Victoria tunnel vs Hataitai tunnel Hataitai tunnel with Ruahine Street Link Mt Victoria tunnel Description  Route via Ruahine Street with extension at  Route via Ruahine Street and second Mt northern end to Waitoa Road. Victoria tunnel. Comparison  Less PT vehicles through the Basin  More PT vehicles through the Basin, from two  No conflict with SH1. directions (south and east).  Some SH1 conflict Kent/Cambridge Terrace and at Basin Reserve.  Existing Hataitai tunnel has sufficient capacity.  Mt Vic Tunnel duplication required.  Property and parking impacts along Ruahine  Property and parking impacts along Ruahine Street (widening) and plus some properties Street (widening). required for link to Waitoa Road.  Operates through Pirie/Elizabeth Street  Avoids Pirie/Elizabeth residential area. residential area. Requires some mixing with  Local bus services would operate via Hataitai general traffic or significant property and tunnel. parking impacts.  Local buses would feed into Hataitai village interchange.  Limited urban renewal/growth impacts. Limited urban renewal/growth impacts. Alternatives  Route could operate via Moxham Avenue.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 69 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6. Priority measures and travel times This chapter identifies the potential impact of priority measures on public transport travel times to identify potential travel time savings and inform resource requirements and service costing.

6.1. Public transport speeds relevant to Wellington Figure 6.1 shows the relationship between speed, stop spacing and speed limit (maximum speed). In the Wellington context the maximum speed is 50 km/h on most roads and 30 km/h along the Golden Mile. The Wellington environment requires closer stop spacing than might be required in other areas due to the terrain, weather conditions and density of development. Therefore 300-600m stop spacing is appropriate on most core routes and would result in maximum average speeds of 25-28km/h. Increased spacing has marginal impact on travel time and will need to be balanced against longer walking distances to public transport. This trade-off is particularly true in the CBD where shorter distance between stops can reduce potential speeds to around 18 km/h on the Golden Mile (although average speeds currently on the Golden Mile are around 10.5 km/h). Figure 6.1 shows average speeds based on speed limit and stop spacing. This indicates that in the Wellington context the maximum average speed that could be achieve is around 28km/h, based on a speed limit of 50 km/h and potential stop spacing of around 600m. Due to the slow speed environment increasing stop spacing to around 1km would increase speeds by around 5km/h.

Figure 6.1 Average speed relative to stop spacing and maximum speed

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 70 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6.2. Potential speed and travel time estimates Table 6.1 sets out the speed assumptions for road segments within the study area. Base case speeds are based on an analysis of real time information for existing bus routes. The Low, Medium and High scenarios have increasing speeds based on a high-level consideration of potential speed increases resulting from various levels of public transport priority. The reasoning for the assumptions is provided in Table 6.2. A more detailed assessment of potential travel times is recommended. This should take account of actual level of priority than can be provided on each segment, traffic volumes and intersection delays.

Table 6.1 Speed and travel time assumptions

Speed limit Base Case (BC) from RTI Low Medium High Speed limit Avg speed Avg speed Avg speed Avg speed Segment ID Dist (m) (kmh) IVT (mins) (kmh) IVT (mins) (kmh) IVT (mins) (kmh) IVT (mins) (kmh) IVT (mins)

Airport Miramar 1 1,696 50 2.04 22.5 4.52 22.5 4.52 22.5 4.52 28.0 3.63 Miramar Kilbirnie 2 1,993 58 2.06 22.5 5.31 22.5 5.31 22.5 5.31 28.0 4.27

Kilbirnie Hataitai 3 1,676 54.2 1.86 15.5 6.49 17.0 5.92 22.5 4.47 28.0 3.59 Hataitai Te Aro Park 4 2,088 50 2.51 15.5 8.08 17.0 7.37 22.5 5.57 28.0 4.47

Hataitai Taranaki at Cable 20 2,082 50 2.5 15.5 8.06 17.0 7.35 22.5 5.55 28.0 4.46 Taranaki at Cable Waterfront 21 578 50 0.69 10.5 3.3 15.0 2.31 18.0 1.93 21.0 1.65

Kilbirnie Zoo (via tunnel) 5 1,235 62.1 1.19 15.0 4.94 17.0 4.36 22.5 3.29 28.0 2.65 Zoo (via tunnel) Hospital 6 1,373 50 1.65 15.0 5.49 16.0 5.15 20.5 4.02 25.0 3.3

Kilbirnie Crawford 7 528 50 0.63 15.0 2.11 16.0 1.98 20.5 1.54 25.0 1.27 Crawford Hospital 8 1,792 50 2.15 15.0 7.17 16.0 6.72 20.5 5.25 25.0 4.30

Hospital Taranaki/Vivian 9 1,663 50 2 11.0 9.07 15.0 6.65 18.0 5.54 21.0 4.75 Hospital Taranaki/Vivian (via tunnel) 10 1,597 50 1.92 11.0 8.71 16.0 5.99 20.5 4.67 25.0 3.83 Taranaki/Vivian Te Aro Park 11 456 50 0.55 11.0 2.49 15.0 1.82 18.0 1.52 21.0 1.3

Hospital Cambridge at Vivian 12 1,438 50 1.73 16.0 5.39 17.0 5.08 22.5 3.83 28.0 3.08 Cambridge at Vivian Te Aro Park 13 791 50 0.95 16.0 2.96 17.0 2.79 22.5 2.11 28.0 1.69

Te Aro Park Civic Centre 14 613 30 1.23 10.5 3.51 13.0 2.83 15.5 2.37 18.0 2.04 Civic Centre Lambton Central 15 740 30 1.48 10.5 4.23 13.0 3.42 15.5 2.87 18.0 2.47 Lambton Central Wgtn Station 16 574 30 1.15 10.5 3.28 13.0 2.65 15.5 2.22 18.0 1.91

Te Aro Park Waterfront 17 558 50 0.67 10.5 3.19 15.0 2.23 18.0 1.86 21.0 1.59 Waterfront Lambton Central 18 636 50 0.76 10.5 3.63 15.0 2.54 18.0 2.12 21.0 1.82 Lambton Central Wgtn Station 19 685 30 1.37 10.5 3.92 15.0 2.74 18.0 2.28 21.0 1.96

Notes: (a) All speeds and travel times are based on peak direction travel during peak periods; (b) ID#2 assumes 800m with 70kmh speed limit; ID#3 assumes 350m tunnel with 70kmh speed limit; ID#5 assumes 750mm tunnel with 70kmh speed limit. All other speed limits 50kmh.

Table 6.2 Reasoning for speed and travel time assumptions Segment Explanation of speed and travel time assumptions Airport - Miramar Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Low/Medium no impact due to existing high speeds. Miramar - Kilbirnie Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Low/Medium no impact due to existing high speeds. Kilbirnie - Hataitai Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Hataitai - Te Aro Park Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Hataitai - Taranaki at Cable Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Taranaki at Cable - Waterfront Refer CBD WF below. Kilbirnie - Zoo (via tunnel) Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Zoo (via tunnel) - Hospital Based on high=25 not 28kmh due to slow travel environment through Newtown. Kilbirnie - Crawford Based on high=25 not 28kmh due to slow travel environment through Newtown. Crawford - Hospital Based on high=25 not 28kmh due to slow travel environment through Newtown. Hospital - Taranaki/Vivian Based on CBD WF due to current speeds being equivalent to CBD speeds. Hospital - Taranaki/Vivian (via tunnel) Based on high=25 not 21kmh to account for tunnel/grade separation. Taranaki/Vivian - Te Aro Park Based on CBD WF due to current speeds being equivalent to CBD speeds. Hospital - Cambridge at Vivian High = 28kmh with Basin grade separation. Low/medium at-grade with priority measures. Cambridge at Vivian - Te Aro Park Based on high=28kmh based on 600m stop spacing (800m spacing not realistic for Wellington). Te Aro Park - Civic Centre CBD GM - High = 18kmh based on full bus loading with 1 second per boarding - does not Civic Centre - Lambton Central include provision for intersections/pedestrian crossings. Lambton Central - Wgtn Station Te Aro Park - Waterfront CBD WF - High = 21kmh based on full bus loading with 1 second per boarding - does not include Waterfront - Lambton Central provision for intersections/pedestrian crossings. Lambton Central - Wgtn Station

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 71 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6.3. Public transport priority assumptions 6.3.1. Priority assumption for the CBD The CBD is a critical component of the public transport network and priority measures in this area will benefit a majority of Wellington city passengers. Therefore, a high investment in priority measures on both the proposed public transport corridors within the CBD (Golden Mile and Waterfront) is recommended. Current speeds along the Golden Mile are around 10.5km/h based on an analysis of real time information, although speeds vary considerably. The Golden Mile is assumed to have a lower speed than the Waterfront corridor due to differences in the speed limit, although a section of the two corridors is shared. Time spent at bus stops is a major constraint on public transport capacity through the CBD (travel times and effective capacity). If boarding times per passenger could be reduced this would help to alleviate bus-bus congestion in the CBD and increase potential bus throughput levels. It is therefore assumed that ticketing improvement such as off-vehicle ticketing will be implemented as part of any investment in improved priority for public transport. The impact of passenger boarding times on reliability and capacity needs to be considered, particularly for double-decker buses which may have longer loading times than other high capacity vehicle options. The potential for multi-door boarding should also be considered. Further investigation is recommended. Consequently, we have assumed speeds of 18km/h on the Golden Mile and 21km/h on the Waterfront for the high priority level of investment based on an analysis of stop locations and potential boarding times per passenger. Table 6.3 shows CBD travel times based on number of stop and speed limit assumptions. This does not take account of intersection delays, pedestrian crossing delays or delays due to turning requirements.

Table 6.3 Estimation of CBD travel times based on stop spacing assuming full priority Acceleration (m/s/s) 1.3 Doors opening/closing time (s) 7

Vehicle capacity (assume fully loaded) 100

Time per boarding (s) 1 Time per alighting (s) 0.5

Waterfront Spine - 6 stops

Avg IVT Total Distance from Sped limit Cumul. Cumul. speed Total dwell Cumul. Total travel cumul. Avg speed Stops Meters along line last stop (m) (km/h) Dist (m) IVT (km/h) time (s) Dwell time time (s) travel time (km/h) 444 44.4 2.2 4.0 33.6 2.4 6.3 21.0 Avg spacing (m) km/h kms mins km/h mins mins km/h

Golden Mile Spine - 8 stops

Avg IVT Total Distance from Sped limit Cumul. Cumul. speed Dwell time Cumul. Total travel cumul. Avg speed Stops Meters along line last stop (m) (km/h) Dist (m) IVT (km/h) (s) Dwell time time (s) travel time (km/h) 334 30.0 2.3 5.3 25.5 2.6 7.9 17.1 Avg spacing (m) km/h kms mins km/h mins mins km/h

Golden Mile Spine - 5 stops

Avg IVT Total Distance from Sped limit Cumul. Cumul. speed Dwell time Cumul. Total travel cumul. Avg speed Stops Meters along line last stop (m) (km/h) Dist (m) IVT (km/h) (s) Dwell time time (s) travel time (km/h) 564 30.0 2.3 5.0 27.1 2.3 7.2 18.7 Avg spacing (m) km/h kms mins km/h mins mins km/h

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 72 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6.3.2. Priority assumptions outside the CBD The priority assumptions for each corridor segment are set out in Table 6.4. These are based on the following considerations:  All options assume high investment in priority measures in the CBD (as per above).  LRT options assume a high investment in priority measures on LRT corridors only, although only low or medium investment in priority is assumed where options for priority are limited (e.g. Hospital to Cambridge at Vivian). A low investment in priority measures is assumed for other corridors outside the CBD.  BRT options assume medium investment in priority measures on all corridors, which is a lower level of investment than assumed for some LRT corridor segments. These assumptions will need to be reviewed as the same level of priority can be provided for LRT and BRT and should be assumed to enable a like-for-like comparison. A subsequent step is recommended where high investment in priority measures is assumed on all BRT corridors to provide equal comparison with LRT. This would be expected to lead to slightly faster travel times for some BRT routes and reduce BRT annual operating costs. NB: The distinction between LRT and BRT levels of priority is rather arbitrary as both modes can be delivered with the same level of priority. Further work is recommended on priority assumptions so that a like-for-like comparison can be made between the options. This has not been possible due to time constraints.

Table 6.4 Degree of priority (Base Case (BC), Low, Medium, High) by segment for selected options Option 1 BRT Option 3 - X1 via Golden Mile, Option 4 - X1 via Waterfront, Option 4A - X1 via Waterfront, Base Case Cambridge Taranaki (no tunnels) Taranaki (with tunnels)

Segment ID X1 via GM X2 via GM X3 via WF X1 via GM X2 via GM X3 via WF X1 via GM X3 via WF X5 via WF X1 via WF X3 via GM X5 via GM X1 via WF X3 via GM X5 via GM

Airport Miramar 1 BC Medium High High High Miramar Kilbirnie 2 BC BC MediumMedium High High High

Kilbirnie Hataitai 3 BC Medium Low Low Low Hataitai Te Aro Park 4 BC Medium Low Low

Hataitai Taranaki at Cable 20 Low Taranaki at Cable Waterfront 21 High

Kilbirnie Zoo (via tunnel) 5 High Zoo (via tunnel) Hospital 6 Low

Kilbirnie Crawford 7 BC MediumMedium Medium Crawford Hospital 8 BC Low Low Low

Hospital Taranaki/Vivian 9 BC Low Low Medium Low Low Hospital Taranaki/Vivian (via tunnel) 10 Medium Taranaki/Vivian Te Aro Park 11 BC Medium Low High Low High Low

Hospital Cambridge at Vivian 12 BC Low Low Cambridge at Vivian Te Aro Park 13 BC Medium High

Te Aro Park Civic Centre 14 BC BC BC High High High High High High High Civic Centre Lambton Central 15 BC BC BC High High High High High High High Lambton Central Wgtn Station 16 BC BC BC High High High High High High High

Te Aro Park Waterfront 17 High High High High Waterfront Lambton Central 18 High High High High High Lambton Central Wgtn Station 19 High High High High High

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 73 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6.4. Change in travel time on main routes The travel times identified in this section are potential travel times in the short term assuming low, medium or high-level of priority as set out above. NB: All speeds and travel times are based on peak direction travel during peak periods. Travel times in the study area are shown in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6. Selected route travel times are shown in Appendix D. NB: Further work is required on travel times but has not been possible due to time constraints for this project.

Table 6.5 Option travel time in minutes by segment (within LGWM study area only) Option 4 LRT Option 4A LRT Option 1 BRT Option 3 LRT Waterfront/Taranaki (no Waterfront/Taranaki Base Case GoldenMile/Cambridge tunnels) (with tunnels) X1 via X2 via X3 via X1 via X2 via X3 via X1 via X3 via X5 via X1 via X3 via X5 via X1 via X3 via X5 via Segment GM GM WF GM GM WF GM WF WF WF GM GM WF GM GM

Airport Mi ramar 4.5 4.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 Miramar Kilbirnie 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.3 4.3 4.3

Kilbirnie Hataitai 6.5 4.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 Hataitai Te Aro Park 8.1 5.6 7.4 7.4

Hataitai Taranaki at Cable 7.4 Taranaki at Cable Waterfront 1.7

Kilbirnie Zoo (via tunnel) 2.7 Zoo (via tunnel) Hospital 5.2

Kilbirnie Crawford 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 Crawford Hospital 7.2 6.7 6.7 6.7

Hospital Taranaki/Vivian 9.1 6.7 6.7 5.5 6.7 6.7 Hospital Taranaki/Vivian (via tunnel) 4.7 Taranaki/Vivian Te Aro Park 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.8

Hospital Cambridge at Vivian 7.2 5.5 5.5 Cambridge at VivianTe Aro Park 3.0 2.1 1.7

Te Aro Park Civic Centre 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Civic Centre Lambton Central 4.2 4.2 4.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lambton Central Wgtn Station 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Te Aro Park Waterfront 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Waterfront Lambton Central 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Lambton Central Wgtn Station 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Total IVT 21.2 35.4 37.2 14.1 26.3 27.1 29.8 18.7 13.8 28.4 19.7 14.9 27.0 19.7 14.9 Table 6.6 Change in option travel time in minutes by segment (within LGWM study area only) Option 4 LRT Option 4A LRT Option 1 BRT Option 3 LRT Waterfront/Taranaki (no Waterfront/Taranaki Base Case GoldenMile/Cambridge tunnels) (with tunnels) X1 via X2 via X3 via X1 via X2 via X3 via X1 via X3 via X5 via X1 via X3 via X5 via X1 via X3 via X5 via Segment GM GM WF GM GM WF GM WF WF WF GM GM WF GM GM

Airport Miramar 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 Miramar Ki lbirnie 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

Kilbirnie Hataitai 0.0 -2.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 Hataitai Te Aro Park 0.0 -2.5 -0.7 -0.7

Hataitai Taranaki at Cable -0.7 Taranaki at Cable Waterfront -1.7

Kilbirnie Zoo (via tunnel) -2.3 Zoo (via tunnel) Hospital -0.3

Kilbirnie Crawford 0.0 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 Crawford Hospital 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Hospital Taranaki/Vivian 0.0 -2.4 -2.4 -3.5 -2.4 -2.4 Hospital Taranaki/Vivian (via tunnel) -4.0 Taranaki/Vivian Te Aro Park 0.0 -1.0 -0.7 -1.2 -0.7 -1.2 -0.7

Hospital Cambridge at Vivian 0.0 -1.7 -1.7 Cambridge at Vivian Te Aro Park 0.0 -0.9 -1.3

Te Aro Park Ci vic Centre 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 Civic Centre Lambton Central 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 Lambton Central Wgtn Station 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4

Te Aro Park Waterfront -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 Waterfront Lambton Central -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 Lambton Central Wgtn Station -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0

Total IVT 0.0 0.0 0.0 -7.1 -9.1 -9.8 -10.5 -6.7 -8.5 -13.0 -5.9 -7.7 -15.2 -5.9 -7.7

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 74 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

6.5. Decision-making trade-offs Given the higher costs of LRT compared to BRT (refer option costing in chapter 9) any decision to go with LRT will require significant trade-offs regarding the affordability of providing priority on other corridors. The decisions on these trade-offs would benefit from a two-step decision-making process: 1. Decision 1: a. Does LGWM want to make a High, Medium or Low investment in public transport? 2. Decision 2: a. If High investment, then does LGWM want: i. LRT with a single high priority corridor, or ii. BRT with multiple high priority corridors. b. If Medium investment, then does LGWM want: i. BRT with a single high priority corridor, or ii. BRT with multiple medium priority corridors c. If Low investment, then does LGWM want: i. BRT with a single medium priority corridor, or ii. BRT with multiple low priority corridors The above decision tree means that if the level of investment is low or medium then LRT would not be considered further. If the investment decision is High, then a trade-off can be made between a single high priority corridor for LRT and multiple high priority corridors for BRT, as shown in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 75 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 6.2 High LRT priority on one corridor vs High BRT priority on multiple corridors

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 76 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 6.3 High BRT priority on multiple corridors

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 77 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

7. Stop locations and walking catchments Stop locations are important to consider as this is where passengers enter and exit the system. It is also important to understand the space requirements for high quality stops on high frequency corridors.

7.1. Stop locations A previous technical note considered the rationalisation of public transport stops (Opus 2017j) but the focus of that report was a split BRT spine to the Airport and along a single Golden Mile corridor within the CBD. Figure 7.1 identifies potential stop locations on the rapid transit network. The stop locations are based on a consideration of:  Existing passenger boardings per stop.  Population and employment densities.  Location of key trip generators/destinations.  Urban growth precincts (i.e. Victoria/Cuba, Te Aro, Adelaide Road, Kilbirnie, Airport).  Core public transport network corridors and potential services along these corridors.  The trade-off between efficiency (speed) and access. The potential speed of public transport services is limited by the 50km/h speed limit on roads. This means the benefits of longer stop spacing start to fall off after around 600m (refer Figure 6.1 in section 6). The design criteria used for stop spacing was 600-800m between primary stops and 400- 600m between other stops, unless the location of key trip generators or network topology required shorter spacing. The concept is that any LRT route would stop at primary and secondary stops only and any BRT route would stop at all stops (i.e. including tertiary stops). Within the CBD, the Supreme Court, Cable Car and Cuba Mall stops are all shown as tertiary stops as they would not be serviced by LRT. NB: The stop locations for each of the network options is not shown due to time constraints for this project.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 78 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 7.1 Potential stops on the rapid transit network within the LGWM study area

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 79 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 7.2 Potential stops on the rapid transit network within the LGWM study area with population and employment densities shown

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 80 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

7.2. Walk catchment analysis Figure 7.3 and Table 7.1 compares total population and employment (from Census 2013) within 400m and 800m walk catchments along the road network for LRT routes for options 3 and 4 (the walk catchments are shown in Figure 7.7). The “growth areas +200%” category is a sensitivity test with 200% growth applied to the Victoria/Cuba, Te Aro and Adelaide Road urban growth areas identified in the WCC urban development plan. The analysis shows that more people live and work within 400m of a LRT stop under Option 3 compared to Option 4. This is primarily due to Option 3 operating along the Golden Mile and Constable Street. But both options have a very similar number of people living within 800m of a LRT stop. It is important to note that this does not take account of the supported BRT network that means many of the people counted above will be closer to an alternative BRT service. The analysis in section 7.3 on willingness to walk to railway stations in the shows that people living 800m from a railway station are around 30% less likely to walk to the station than those living 400m from a station.

Figure 7.3 Walk catchment for a single rapid transit corridor between Wellington Stn and Airport

Figure 7.4 Walk catchment for a Golden Mile and Waterfront corridor

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 81 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 7.5 Walk catchment for a Taranaki St vs Kent/Cambridge Terrace corridor

Figure 7.6 Walk catchment for a Constable St vs Zoo (Mt Albert tunnel) corridor

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 82 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Table 7.1 Comparison of population and employment with stop catchments Walk catchment along road network 0-400m 400-800m 0-800m Pop+ Growth Pop+ Growth Pop+ Growth Emp areas Emp areas Emp areas Option Stops 2013 +200% 2013 +200% 2013 +200% Option 3 Wellington Station, Lambton Central, Civic 78,289 96,952 53,412 60,620 131,701 157,571 (Route X1) Centre, Te Aro Park, Courtenay Place,Kent/Cambridge, The Basin, Adelaide Road, Hospital, Newtown Shops A, Constable St,Crawford St, Kilbirnie, Sports Centre, Miramar Shops, Hobart St at Caledonia, Hobart St at Broadway, Airport Option 4D Wellington Station, Queens Wharf, 59,744 77,755 69,316 77,654 129,060 155,409 (Route X1) Waterfront, Te Aro Park, Taranaki Street, The Basin, Adelaide Road, Hospital, Newtown Shops A, Newtown South, Zoo, Kilbirnie, Sports Centre, Miramar Shops, Hobart St at Caledonia, Hobart St at Broadway, Airport CBD Golden Mile Wellington Station, Lambton Central, Civic 54,696 66,364 36,703 46,738 91,399 113,102 corridor Centre, Te Aro Park CBD Waterfront Wellington Station Bunny St, Queens 38,354 47,469 50,062 62,635 88,416 110,104 corridor Wharf, Waterfront, Te Aro Park Kent/Cambridge Te Aro Park, Courtenay Place, 22,272 38,196 36,649 46,580 58,921 84,776 via Basin Kent/Cambridge, The Basin, Adelaide Road, Hospital Taranaki St via Te Aro Park, Taranaki Street, The Basin, 21,568 39,393 37,536 46,059 59,103 85,452 Rugby Adelaide Road, Hospital Constable Street Hospital, Newtown Shops A, Constable St, 14,067 14,926 18,034 19,987 32,101 34,913 Crawford St, Kilbirnie, Sports Centre, Miramar Shops, Hobart St at Caledonia, Hobart St at Broadway, Airport Mt Albert Zoo Hospital, Newtown Shops A, Newtown 12,568 13,427 19,692 21,645 32,260 35,072 tunnel South, Zoo, Kilbirnie, Sports Centre, Miramar Shops, Hobart St at Caledonia, Hobart St at Broadway, Airport NB Growth areas are Victoria/Cuba, Te Aro and Adelaide Road as per Wellington City Council Urban Growth Plan

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 83 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 7.7 Walk catchment for Option 3 LRT route X1

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 84 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 7.8 Walk catchment for Option 4 LRT route X1

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 85 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

7.3. Willingness to walk Figure 7.9 shows the share of population that walks to rail by distance for Wellington Station and all other stations in Wellington. This indicates that the closer people live or work to public transport the more likely they are to use it and that people living 800m from a railway station are around 30% less likely to walk to the station than those living 400m from a station. Further work is required to determine whether this observation for rail would also apply to LRT in Wellington city.

Figure 7.9 Share of population and employment that walks to rail by distance (2011 rail survey)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 86 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

8. Infrastructure and staging

8.1. Infrastructure This report does not consider infrastructure requirements beyond the right-of-way and stop locations. Some limited comments are provided below. 8.1.1. Stop facilities Chapter 7 identified potential stop locations on the rapid transit network using a hierarchy of:  Primary stops/interchanges  Secondary stops  Tertiary stops These tiers have been identified to help determine the appropriate facilities to provide at different stops. The intention is that primary stops/Interchanges provide the greatest level of service (comfort, information, etc) while tertiary stops provide a minimum level of services appropriate for the corridor. 8.1.2. Depot requirements The LRT options will require depot facilities as discussed in the WSP review (WSP 2017a). An indicative LRT depot for 25 vehicles was identified by WSP and is shown in Figure 8.1 (Options 2-4 require 24-27 LRT vehicles).

Figure 8.1 Indicative LRT depot (WSP 2017a, p.18)

The waterfront area alongside or north of Wellington Station would be a potential suitable site for depot facilities, with the footprint for an indicative LRT depot on the Waterfront shown in Figure 8.2. There are few other locations on the potential LRT corridors suitable for depot facilities due to existing development or conflicting land uses. For example, the Airport would be a potential location but there is limited space and most of this is already taken up by airport activities. The vicinity of the zoo could be another potential location but there is very limited space and any depot facility would have significant impacts on amenity in this residential area and on the town belt. Reconfiguration of existing rail depot facilities could be another option. Further work is recommended on identifying a suitable location and configuration of depot facilities.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 87 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 8.2 Footprint for the indicative LRT depot on Waterfront

8.1.3. Other LRT supporting infrastructure This report has not addressed track, power and other supporting infrastructure required for LRT as the focus has been on integrating network options.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 88 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

8.2. Staging This report does not consider staging of LRT or BRT in any detail. The following is a potential four- stage approach: 1. Phase One: Implement priority measures on the two CBD corridors. Changes in the CBD would provide immediate benefits for existing bus services. This phase would also need to identify and protect any land required for depot facilities (particularly for LRT). 2. Phase Two: Construct LRT or BRT line to the Zoo (or Newtown Shops if phase three route via Constable Street). An interim terminus at the Hospital or elsewhere is not recommended as this would have impacts on the interim public transport network including operational inefficiencies and possibly a significant increase in forced transfers. Passengers travelling to the airport and other eastern suburbs will likely use a BRT service via Hataitai or Constable Street. 3. Phase Three: Construct LRT or BRT from the Zoo or Newtown Shops to Kilbirnie. The route could either be via a new Mt Albert tunnel from the Zoo or via Constable Street and Crawford Road. Passengers travelling to the airport will likely use a BRT service via Hataitai while other passengers travelling to the eastern suburbs will transfer at Kilbirnie. 4. Phase Four: Construct LRT or BRT from Kilbirnie to Airport via Miramar. Passengers travelling to the eastern suburbs will transfer at Miramar. The options in this report assume the full network is implemented and do not consider the interim stages required. Further work is required to determine an appropriate staging plan.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 89 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

9. Option costing The network options in chapter 5 have been costed based on the service levels specified for all the routes in each option. The options have been costed for the whole Wellington city bus network to take account of not just the routes in the LGWM study area; this is because changes to services in one area can require subsequent changes in other areas (e.g. to provide for through running of services).

9.1. Annual resource requirements The first step in calculating operating costs is to calculate the annual resource requirements for peak vehicles, service hours and service kms against which unit cost rates can be applied. The required peak vehicle, hours and kms have been calculated using a public transport planning model based on the service level assumptions in section 3.6 and the service levels specified in chapter 5 for each option. For each route, the route distance, average speed and service headways by time of day were used as inputs to calculate the number of peak vehicles required, service hours and service kms operated each year. The peak vehicle requirement for each option is shown in Figure 9.1. The larger capacity of LRT vehicles compared to BRT vehicles can be seen with the reduced total number of vehicles required for the LRT options. Annual services hours are shown in Figure 9.2 and annual service-kms in Figure 9.3.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 90 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure 9.1 Peak vehicle requirement for each option

Figure 9.2 Annual service hours for each option

Figure 9.3 Annual service kms for each option

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 91 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

9.2. Unit cost rates The unit rates used for costing of options are set in Table 9.1. These rates have been prepared by Ian Wallis Associates based on public transport operations in Australia and New Zealand. They are appropriate for use in a strategic study of this nature but further work on costs is recommended as part of the economic evaluation.

Table 9.1 Unit rates for costing of options Operational cost Annual capital cost rate per peak vehicle Operational cost Operational cost Vehicle options (6% discount rate) (1) rate per service-hour rate per service-km Bus (standard) 43,125 27,000 27.50 0.85 BRT (double-decker) 68,691 33,750 30.25 1.24 LRT (33m) 388,010 422,050 151.71 6.30 LRT (2x33) 717,818 780,792 227.56 11.97 Notes: (1) PVR rates include additional 10% for spares; Unit rates are in 2017/18 dollars and exclude GST; Costs excludes track costs for LRT or other infrastructure costs.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 92 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

9.3. Annual operating costs Annual operating costs are summarised in Table 9.2 and broken down by mode in Table 9.3. Key points:  The Base Case is the Wellington 2036 network assuming low demand scenario and standard buses. The other options all assume the medium demand scenario.  Option 1 for BRT has a total annual operating cost, including annual vehicle capital charges, is $61.0m which is 9.2% less than the base case due to a significant reduction in number of vehicles required.  Total annual operating cost for LRT with a split route (Option 2) is $93m, which is around $32m (53%) more than the BRT option 1. LRT with a single route (Options 3/4D) is $90.6m, which is $29.6m 48%) more than the BRT option 1.

Table 9.2 Summary of network option annual operating cost Annual Difference operating cost from base Difference Network option ($m) ($m) from base (%) Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036) 67.4 - - Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the 61.1 -6.2 -9.2% airport Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and 93.3 26.0 38.6% Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, 90.7 23.4 34.7% Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 4D – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, 90.4 23.0 34.2% Zoo, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, 99.3 31.9 47.4% Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 93 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Table 9.3 Network option annual operating cost by mode Annual operating costs

Annual vehicle capital charges Annual operational costs ($m) ($m) Total annual operating cost ($m) Option LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total Base case – Wellington city 2036 bus network - - 49.0 49.0 - - 18.4 18.4 - - 67.4 67.4 Option 1 – BRT network with CBD and Airport - 31.5 12.1 43.6 - 14.2 3.4 17.5 - 45.7 15.5 61.1 enhancements Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar and LRT to Newtown via Golden 31.0 26.0 12.0 69.0 9.3 11.7 3.4 24.4 40.3 37.7 15.3 93.3 Mile, Basin and Hospital Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, 29.2 24.7 12.2 66.0 10.5 10.8 3.4 24.7 39.7 35.4 15.6 90.7 Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 4D – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, 27.9 24.6 13.4 65.8 10.1 10.7 3.8 24.6 38.0 35.3 17.1 90.4 Hospital, Zoo, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 5 – LRT Newlands – Airport via Golden Mile, 44.4 17.7 12.7 74.8 13.6 7.3 3.6 24.5 57.9 25.1 16.3 99.3 Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

Change in annual operating costs (#) compared to Option 1

Change in annual operational Change in annual vehicle capital Change in total annual operating cost ($m) charges ($m) cost ($m) Option LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total Base case – Wellington city 2036 bus network ------Option 1 – BRT network with CBD and Airport - 31.5 -36.8 -5.3 - 14.2 -15.1 -0.9 - 45.7 -51.9 -6.2 enhancements Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar and LRT to Newtown via Golden 31.0 26.0 -37.0 20.0 9.3 11.7 -15.1 5.9 40.3 37.7 -52.0 26.0 Mile, Basin and Hospital Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, 29.2 24.7 -36.8 17.1 10.5 10.8 -15.0 6.3 39.7 35.4 -51.7 23.4 Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 4D – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, 27.9 24.6 -35.6 16.9 10.1 10.7 -14.7 6.1 38.0 35.3 -50.2 23.0 Hospital, Zoo, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 5 – LRT Newlands – Airport via Golden Mile, 44.4 17.7 -36.3 25.8 13.6 7.3 -14.8 6.1 57.9 25.1 -51.1 31.9 Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

Change in annual operating costs (%) compared to Option 1

Change in annual operational Change in annual vehicle capital Change in total annual operating cost (%) charges (%) cost (%) Option LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total LRT BRT Bus Total Base case – Wellington city 2036 bus network ------Option 1 – BRT network with CBD and Airport - - -75% -11% - - -82% -5% - - -77% -9% enhancements Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar and LRT to Newtown via Golden - - -76% 41% - - -82% 32% - - -77% 39% Mile, Basin and Hospital Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Basin, - - -75% 35% - - -81% 34% - - -77% 35% Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 4D – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, - - -73% 35% - - -80% 33% - - -75% 34% Hospital, Zoo, Kilbirnie and Miramar Option 5 – LRT Newlands – Airport via Golden Mile, - - -74% 53% - - -81% 33% - - -76% 47% Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 94 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

9.4. Infrastructure capital costs This report has focused on network design and operations. Infrastructure costs have not been considered in any detail, although the following comments are made:  Some sub-options considered the potential for tunnels and grade separation, but these were not included in the main options as alternative corridor options are available and currently being used. A separate cost and economic evaluation exercise is recommended for these sub-options.  The PTSS costed a second Mt Victoria tunnel at around $300 million for a two-lane tunnel (AECOM 2013a). The zoo tunnel would be longer but potentially only one-lane.  The PTSS costed construction of BRT at an average of $22 million per km and LRT at $56 million per km (excluding the cost of Mt Victoria tunnel) (AECOM 2013a). These cost estimates are assumed to be for dual tracks/lanes.  Based on Figure 6.2 in chapter 6, and the above PTSS costs, the LRT option provides a high investment in priority measures for 10.5 km (LRT) and 1.5 km (BRT) giving a construction cost of $621 million. The BRT option provides a high investment in priority measures across the whole study area (about 22 km) giving a construction cost of $484 million.  The infrastructure costs for an alternative CRRC ART vehicle is said to be 20% the cost of regular metro systems in China. The basis of this claim is unclear, and it is more likely a comparison with heavy rail metro than LRT. Given that ART is a new system touted by a supplier the quoted costs are likely to be on the low side (Henry 2017) and in any event are not NZ specific.  The ART costs could reasonably be expected to be somewhere between those of BRT and LRT. ART vehicles are larger than BRT and therefore additional upgrades to roading would likely be required but not to the same extent at LRT and there is no requirement for tracks. Further work is required to identify infrastructure requirements and capital costs (including right-of- way, station, and property requirements) for the network options identified.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 95 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

10. Conclusions and recommendations The conclusions and recommendations in this section pick up on most of the areas covered in this report but due to time constraints there may be some elements covered above that are not reflected in this section.

10.1. Role of rapid transit The role of rapid transit is set out in the PT Plan. Rapid transit is part of a core network of services providing high capacity services between centres and along key corridors. The following outcomes for public transport are set out in the RLTP:  Increased public transport use  Improved public transport accessibility for all  Improved quality of public transport  Improved public transport reliability and journey times These outcomes are directly relevant to the LGWM project where rapid transit is an important means of delivering a core public transport network that has the following characteristics:  High frequency (at least 10-minutes all-day, every day)  Fast and reliable compared to car  High quality infrastructure  High capacity vehicles  High quality electric vehicles

10.2. CBD network The performance of the Wellington CBD network is critical to the public transport system in Wellington. Two primary public transport corridors are required in the CBD to accommodate passenger demand and the resulting number of vehicle movements. The two public transport corridors are:  Golden Mile corridor with stops at Wellington Station, Lambton Interchange, Civic Centre, Te Aro Interchange and Courtenay Place. Additional stops may be located at Cable Car and Manners Mall.  Waterfront corridor with stops at Wellington Station, Lambton Interchange, Waterfront, Te Aro Interchange and Taranaki Street. The Golden Mile is the recommended corridor for LRT to maximise access within the CBD, enhance amenity along the Golden Mile and because LRT has some advantages over bus in mixed pedestrian environments. The Waterfront would be the slightly faster corridor for several reasons, including that the speed limit on the Golden Mile corridor is 30 km/h and the Waterfront 50 km/h. There are three key interchange locations:  Wellington Station – this primarily caters for rail transfers  Lambton Central – allows transfers between the two CBD corridors.  Te Aro Interchange – allows transfers between the two CBD corridors. The allocation of routes between the CBD corridors is largely determined by whether the route operates along Kent/Cambridge Terrace or Taranaki Street to the south. The LRT network options require 24-28 vehicles per hour per direction on the LRT corridor during peak periods and 56-92 vehicles on the BRT/bus corridor. The high number of vehicles on the BRT/bus corridor is due to demand from the northern suburbs and LRT limiting the ability the ability to through-route services. The BRT option requires only 46 vehicles per hour per direction on each of the two CBD corridors during peak period with a total of 92 vehicles per hour. This is a lower number of vehicles than under LRT due to the ability to through-route all BRT routes and therefore reduce duplication.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 96 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Further consideration is required as to the impact of the two primary public transport corridors on other modes, in particularly on vehicle circulation and access within the CBD. Options such as making Featherston and Victoria two-way should be considered.

10.3. Network options The following network options have been considered:  Base case – Wellington city bus network (2036)  Option 1 – BRT along multiple corridors and extending to the airport  Option 2 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Hataitai, Kilbirnie and Miramar; and to Zoo via Kent/Cambridge, Basin and Hospital  Option 3 – LRT to Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  Option 4 – LRT to Airport via Waterfront, Taranaki St, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar  Option 4D – Revised Option 4 aligning with package evaluation  Option 5 – LRT between Newlands and Airport via Golden Mile, Kent/Cambridge, Basin, Hospital, Kilbirnie and Miramar The following key corridor trade-offs have been identified:  LRT on Golden Mile vs Waterfront  LRT via Taranaki St vs Kent/Cambridge Terrace  LRT via Constable Street vs Zoo tunnel  BRT/LRT via Mt Victoria tunnel vs Hataitai tunnel An overview of the key corridor trade-offs is provided in section 5.8.

10.4. Vehicles In this report we have assumed (for the service types identified in section 3.6):  Core BRT: Double-decker buses with a capacity of 100 passengers per vehicle (peak 1-hour planning capacity of 85). Core BRT could also be operated with articulated buses which have similar capacities to double-decker.  Core LRT: Artic LRV which are 33.5m long and have a capacity of 218 passengers per vehicle (peak 1-hour planning capacity of 180). The use of double length light-rail vehicles is also considered (either coupled or as longer consist). There are a range of other options including bi-articulated buses with capacities and characteristics similar to LRT vehicles that could be considered further (e.g. CRRC ART – Autonomous Rapid Transit).

10.5. Infrastructure  Priority measures o Travel times: These are potential travel times in the short term assuming low, medium or high-level of bus priority. Over the medium to longer term the travel time benefits of having these priority measures is likely to increase considerably with an increasing relative advantage compared with car. o No turning movements at Taranaki Street to maximise green time for PT and pedestrians – refer Te Aro interchange o Boulcott Street intersection – divert Brooklyn services via Te Aro interchange to maximise green time for PT. o Removal of cars from the Golden Mile.  Tunnels and alternatives (for further investigation/evaluation)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 97 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

o A sub-option considered rapid transit using a duplicated Mt Victoria tunnel as per the PTSS. It is recommended that further consideration be given to maximising the use of the Hataitai bus tunnel to avoid using the Mt Victoria tunnel. This will help optimise the operation of the Basin Reserve intersection as priority measures would only have to be accommodated for north/south public transport services.  Stops and stations o Concept designs are provided for some interchanges. o Te Aro Park interchange – benefit of no turning movements at Taranaki Street o Lambton Central interchange  Depot requirements have not been considered. Options could include use of the waterfront alongside the railway station.

10.6. Key findings so far The following table outlines some key points of difference arising from the network options reviewed. Network options with BRT only Network options with LRT and BRT  Builds on existing bus network, fits with 2018 network  Can be integrated with wider bus network, some north/south and east/west spines changes to 2018 network required.  Fewer transfers needed  More transfers needed on core corridors  Greater service flexibility  Fixed corridors create certainty  Less reliable at highest capacity/demand scenario (>60  Reliable at highest demand scenario (<60 vehicles per vehicles per hour) hour)  Vehicle numbers through CBD meet best practice (<60  Needs to extend to North to meet best practice (<60 vehicles per hour) due to through routing vehicles per hour) BRT/bus vehicle numbers in northern section CBD  Journey times based on directness of the route and  Journey times based on directness of the route and level of priority given to public transport. level of priority given to public transport.

In summary, LRT has potential reliability benefits on the LRT corridor in the CBD compared to BRT due to fewer vehicle movements under the high demand scenario. But due to growth in the northern suburbs LRT options may result is poorer reliability on the BRT corridor within the CBD. This is due to the high number of vehicles movements required to meet demand from the north and which will not be able to through-route due to LRT. Requiring northern suburbs passengers to transfer on the CBD fringe would reduce the potential for growth in public transport ridership and mode share and is therefore undesirable. Alternative vehicles such as the CRRC ATR (Autonomous Rapid Transit) would have similar operating characteristics to LRT but may create the opportunity to provide the high quality north/south corridor included in the BRT option (e.g. Airport to Newtown).

10.7. Aspects not yet addressed  Infrastructure, feasibility and associated capital costs  Demand forecasts  Impacts on non-PT travel  Economic and financial evaluation  Other evaluation aspects (PBC etc requirements)  Phasing and timing  Work plan for next stage of investigation

10.8. Next steps The following further analysis/next steps are recommended:

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 98 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

1. Identify expected travel times for routes corridors based on proposed level of priority for BRT and LRT options (e.g. public transport lanes and signal pre-emption). Recommended using the low, medium and high levels of priority identified in the Opus bus lanes work. Note: To ensure like-for-like comparison, the same level of priority must be assumed for both BRT and LRT options. 2. Identify and evaluate the impact of two primary public transport corridors in the CBD, including consideration of: a. Impact on access and circulation for the roading network. b. Much of Lambton Quay will need to become public transport only. c. Taranaki/Manners intersection conflicting movements. There may be a need to consider blocking the end of Dixon Street to traffic and potentially the western end of Courtenay Place or allowing only one-way access. d. Boulcott St intersection likely needs to retain two way-access for other vehicles, which is one of the reasons why the Brooklyn route is diverted through Taranaki Street rather than direct down Willis Street. e. LRT on the Golden Mile could potentially operate along a short single-track section at the southern end of Lambton Quay to avoid using the diversion around Hunter. f. Use of northern end of Lambton Quay by up to four lanes for public transport (LRT/BRT). g. Terminating LRT or BRT at Bunny Street in front of the station would be ideal for making rail transfers more attractive and hence growing patronage. This could require a one-way loop to provide capacity and would need some further detailed consideration. 3. Estimate demand impacts and complete economic evaluation of the network scenarios to identify the preferred options for inclusion in programme business case. This should include an analysis of the following specific corridor trade-offs: a. Economic evaluation of Golden Mile vs Waterfront route for LRT, with BRT assumed on the alternative corridor. This should consider amenity impacts, walking catchments, travel times and urban development. b. Economic evaluation of Hataitai tunnel with and without Ruahine Street extension vs second Mt Victoria tunnel corridor. c. Economic evaluation of Kent/Cambridge Terrace vs Taranaki Street corridor for LRT. These options should also be compared against a BRT corridor on both Kent/Cambridge Terrace and Taranaki Street. At-grade options for crossing SH1 should be considered for both corridors under BRT and LRT scenarios. d. Economic evaluation of Constable/Crawford Street vs Mt Albert zoo tunnel corridor for LRT. This should include consideration of potential single-track sections. 4. Review and update BRT and LRT operating cost estimates based on recent Wellington city bus contract award and LRT cost benchmarks (ideally from Australia). 5. Further review of an ART “autonomous rapid transit” vehicle option. Further information is required on operating costs and infrastructure requirements and costs. This review should also cover other high capacity bus options that operate like LRT. 6. Complete engineering feasibility and cost estimates for fixed infrastructure on the LRT and BRT corridors.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 99 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

7. Develop a potential staging plan setting out the interim public transport network implications at each stage. 8. Review to identify how public transport services should be delivered in the northern suburbs to meet growing travel demand from this area. This should consider how LRT options can be extended to the north/west to maximise the network benefits of LRT and reduce the number of buses required to operate through the CBD. NB: LRT requires more buses in CBD than BRT due to insufficient corridors for through-routing of bus services from the north.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 100 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

References Abley (2014) Basin Bridge Project Traffic and Transportation Effects Peer Review. https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000026/External-advice-and- reports/Basin-Bridge-Updated-Traffic-and-Transportation-Peer-Review.pdf ACT Government (2017) New Transport Canberra branded articulated bus arrives in Canberra - Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. Accessed 20 March 2018. http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/m eegan-fitzharris-mla-media-releases/2017/new-transport-canberra-branded-articulated-bus- arrives-in-canberra AECOM (2013a) Compliation Report Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2015a) Karori to CBD Bus Route - Bus Delay and Options Report. Karori. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2017) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Scenario Costing. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2013b) Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Road Tunnels FAQs. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2015b) Mt Cook to CBD Bus Route - Bus Delay and Options Report. Southern suburbs. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2016a) Newlands Transportation Assessment - Newlands Medium Density Residential Area. Northern suburbs. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2016b) Proposed Karori Residential Medium Density Transport Corridor Review. Karori. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2014a) PTSS Analysis of Kilbirnie Route Options Technical Note. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2014b) PTSS Analysis of Kilbirnie Route Options Technical Note - Appendix A GIS overlay land take for Hataitai Bus tunnel alternative route. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2015c) Seatoun to Kilbirnie Bus Route - Bus Delay and Options Report. Eastern suburbs. Wellington City Council. AECOM (2013c) Wellington PT Spine Study - Technical Note: Secondary Route. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013d) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013e) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results - Appendix B Cross Sections. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013f) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results - Appendix C Planning Assessment. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013g) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results - Appendix D Economics Evaluation Methodology. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013h) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results - Appendix E Option Cost Methodology. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. AECOM (2013i) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Option Evaluation Results - Appendix F PT Service Cost Methodology. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 101 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Anon (n.d.) SMART1 Syracuse metropolitan area regional transit study phase 1 - Transit enhancement strategies. Accessed 31 March 2018a. http://smtcmpo.org/SMART/docs/2016- 02-24/SMART_1_Station_4_web.pdf Anon (n.d.) Summary of Transit Modes for Detailed Evaluation. Accessed 31 March 2018b. http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/RV- Modes_OnePager_04112016.pdf Auckland Transport (2017) Mass Transit - Advanced Bus Solution. agenda item no. 10.2 closed session. Auckland Transport. Beca (2015a) Assessment of Civil Options for Increased Internal Clearance, Karori Tunnel, Wellington. Karori. Wellington City Council. Beca (2015b) Karori Tunnel Double Decker Bus Feasibility. Karori. Wellington City Council. Beca (2015c) Karori Tunnel Swept Path Analysis. Karori. Wellington City Council. Beca (2004) Karori Tunnel Upgrade Option Report. Karori. Wellington City Council. BIC (2014) Rapid Transit - Investing in Australia’s Transport Future. Bus Industry Confederation of Australia. http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy- publications/publications/files/Rapid_Transit_Report_BIC_2014.pdf Bruun, E (2005) Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail - Comparing Operating Costs with a Parametric Cost Model. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. CIE (2015) Efficiency of NSW public transport services. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART). https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/website/trimholdingbay/consultant_repor t_-_cie_-_efficiency_of_nsw_public_transport_services_-_december_2015.pdf Clark, R (2011) Steel Wheels Good, Rubber Wheels Bad? - Calculating the Cost-Performance Relationship for Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) and Light-Rail-Transit (LRT) Systems. Association For European Transport and Contributors. Currie, G (2009) Research perspectives on the merits of Light Rail vs Bus. Department for Transport (UK) (2016) Light Rail and Tram Statistics: Notes and Definitions. : 12. Desrosiers, L (2017) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Baseline report: Land use and urban form. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Wellington City Council. Dodson, J et al. (2011) The Principles of Public Transport Network Planning: A review of the emerging literature with select examples. Urban Research Program issues paper 15. http://www.ppt.asn.au/pubdocs/ip15-dodson-et-al-2011.pdf Ford, A (2017) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Central Case Do Minimum Testing. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Ford, A (2018) Mass Transit – Base and Future Year Demand Analysis. Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Mass Transit. Ford, A, C Gerds and S Prosee (2017) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Data Report. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Greater Wellington Regional Council. Global Research (2018) Summary report - Let’s Get Wellington Moving - This report presents summary findings of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) November and December 2017 public engagement. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. http://getwellymoving.co.nz/assets/Documents/Scenario-Development/Global-Research- summary-report.pdf

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 102 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Greater Wellington Regional Council (2017a) Mid-2018 Wellington City Bus Network Map - Route map. Wellington City Bus 2018. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2017b) Mid-2018 Wellington City Bus Network Map - Scematic route map. Wellington City Bus 2018. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2008) Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Plan. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013a) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013b) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 7 WTM HighwayCapacities. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013c) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 8 Coding of Interchanges for PTSS. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013d) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 9.1 Additional Model Results. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013e) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 9.2 PT Indicators. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013f) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 9.3 WTM Highway Indicators. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013g) PTSS Short List Evaluation - Modelling Report - Appendix 10 PT Time Benefits. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2015) Regional Land Transport Programme - Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Strategy. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council (2013h) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study presentation. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Transit NZ and Wellington City Council (2007) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Phase 2 Consultation - Have your say on the Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Grimmond, D (2017) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Estimates of costs of road congestion in Wellington. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Greater Wellington Regional Council. Henry, L (2017) Could China’s “Trackless ” really beat light rail? Accessed 20 March 2018. https://www.railwayage.com/news/could-chinas-trackless-train-really-beat-light-rail/ Hill Young Cooper (2013) Wellington Public Transport Spine Study - Alternative Funding Options Study. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. HiTrans (2005) Best practice guide 2: Public transport - planning the networks. HiTrans. ITDP (2018) The BRT Planning Guide. 4th edition. Jacobs (2017a) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Travel Demand Management Study - Stage One: Discovery. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Jacobs (2017b) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Travel Demand Management Study - Stage Two Report. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. L.E.K. Consulting (2017a) Advanced Bus Solution: Appendix. NZ Transport Agency. Accessed 10 March 2018. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/advanced-bus-solution/ L.E.K. Consulting (2017b) Advanced Bus Solution: Final Report. NZ Transport Agency. Accessed 10 March 2018. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/advanced-bus-solution/

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 103 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

LGWM (2017a) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Case for Change. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017b) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Principles alignment table. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017c) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Public engagement. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017d) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Scenario benefits and impacts. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017e) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Strategic Assessment of Scenarios. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017f) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Strategic Context. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017g) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Strategic Response. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017h) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Summary of Scenarios. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. LGWM (2017i) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - The Basin Reserve - Public Engagement. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Luke, S and M MacDonald (2006) Public Transport Mode Selection: A Review of International Practice. Strasbourg, France: European Transport Conference. Mees, P et al. (2010) Public transport network planning: a guide to best practice in NZ cities. NZ Transport Agency research report 396. Wellington, New Zealand: NZ Transport Agency. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/396/docs/396.pdf Ministry of Transport (NZ) (2017) Transport Outlook Future Overview - A summary of transport futures for New Zealand. http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/new-zealand-transport- outlook/ National Association of City Transportation Officials (2016) Transit street design guide. Accessed 31 March 2018. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates (2014) St Paul Streetcar Feasibility Study - Summary Report. Accessed 31 March 2018. http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/Stpaul-Streetcar-Feasability-Study.compressed.pdf Nicholls, A (2017a) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Initial indication of construction disruption. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Nicholls, A (2017b) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Initial indication of on-street parking impacts. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2009a) Central Area Bus Operational Review. Central Area Bus Operational Review. Wellington, New Zealand: Greater Wellington Regional Council. http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Public-transport/Docs/Bus-Operational-Review- Final-for-GWRC2.pdf Opus (n.d.) Constable / Crawford Street LRT Impacts map. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017a) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - BRT Investigations - summary report. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017b) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN01: Placement of rapid transit priority lanes within the road corridor. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017c) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN02: Options for Priority. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017d) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN02: Options for Priority - Appendix A BRT High. Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 104 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Opus (2017e) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN02: Options for Priority - Appendix A BRT Low. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017f) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN02: Options for Priority - Appendix A BRT Med. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017g) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN02: Options for Priority - Appendix B. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017h) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN03: Corridor constraints and pinch points for PT. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017i) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN04: Impact on Network and Potential Mitigation. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017j) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN05: Rationalisation of bus stops. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017k) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN06: Sequencing. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2017l) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - TN07: Future convertibility from bus based priority lanes to LRT. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Opus (2006a) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Phase 1 Consultation Report. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2008a) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Phase 2 Consultation Report. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2006b) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Problem Framing Report. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2007a) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Technical Report 1: Description of Options. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2007b) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Technical Report 2: Option Packages. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2008b) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Technical Report 3: Recommended Strategy. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2009b) Restoring the Golden Mile - Taranaki Street to Willis Street - Final Evaluation Report. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. Opus (2013) Technical Report 4: Assessment of Traffic and Transportation Effects. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/transmission-gully-application/docs/technical-report- 4.pdf Pathways Consultancy (2008) Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study - Stage 3 Consultation: Submissions on Draft Corridor Plan. Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Study. PWC (2015) Indicative Business Case for Wellington Bus Rapid Transit. Greater Wellington Regional Council. Savarie, J (2016) Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail to Move Ontario Forward. Siedler, CE (2013) Can bus rapid transit be a sustainable means of public transport in fast growing cities? Empirical evidence in the case of Oslo. TCRP (2013) Transit capacity and quality of service manual, third edition. report 165. Washington, USA: Transportation Research Board. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 105 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Tirachini, A, DA Hensher and SR Jara-Díaz (2010) Comparing operator and users costs of light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid transit over a radial public transport network. Research in Transportation Economics 29, no.1: 231–242. UniServices (2016a) Emerging Technologies for Rapid Transit: Part One - Future-proofing Investment Decisions. The Joint Modelling Application Centre Board. UniServices (2016b) Emerging Technologies for Rapid Transit: Part Two - An Evaluation of Specific Technologies. The Joint Modelling Application Centre Board. Wallis, I (2013) Wellington Public Transport Spine study - Peer review report. Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. Wellington City Council (2013) Basin Reserve – Assessment of Alternative Options for Transport Improvements. Accessed 6 March 2018. https://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/your- council/news/files/BasinReserveAlternatives.pdf Wellington City Council (2018) Possible Impacts of LGWM Interventions on Land Values (think piece/discussion document). Wellington City Council (2015) Wellington Urban Growth Plan - Urban Development and Transport Strategy 2014-2043. https://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/your-council/plans-policies-and- bylaws/plans-and-policies/a-to-z/wgtn-urban-growth/wgtn-urban-growth-plan2015.pdf Wraight and Associates (2017a) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Urban Design Study (pp1-29). Let’s Get Wellington Moving. Wraight and Associates (2017b) Let’s Get Wellington Moving - Urban Design Study (pp30-71). Let’s Get Wellington Moving. WSP (2017a) Wellington Mass Transit Independent Review - Summary Report. Let’s Get Wellington Moving. WSP (2017b) Wellington Mass Transit Independent Review - Summary Report - Appendix B: Route Plans. Let’s Get Wellington Moving.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 106 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Example network design process This appendix provides an example of the thought process in developing the network options in chapter 5. The process below was followed in developing a network option with two LRT routes from Wellington Station to Kilbirnie via Hataitai and to the Zoo via Hospital. This is similar to option 2 in chapter 5 but does not include the Airport section of the Kilbirnie route.  Rapid transit lines were entered first, based on the split spine between Wellington Station and Kilbirnie and Hospital but with some modifications: o The LRT line from the Station to Hospital was extended to the Zoo as this moves the terminal away from the constrained environment around the Hospital interchange. This also allows for of vehicles and picks up the dense population catchment between the Hospital and Zoo. o The corridor to Kilbirnie was changed to use Moxham Ave and the Hataitai bus tunnel to pick up the relatively dense population catchment in Hataitai and avoid the need for an additional bus route to pick up this catchment. The Hataitai tunnel has capacity for LRT and avoids the cost of a new Mt Victoria tunnel thus avoiding adding additional public transport services to the confined Basin area. The Moxham Avenue route does require a trade-off between property/parking impacts and travel time that will need to be looked at further. o The southern end of Lambton Quay allows two-way operation by LRT along a single track (approx. 100m) freeing up Hunter Street for other uses (car/walking). This allowed LRT to be kept on the Golden Mile, but an additional corridor will be required for buses.  Consideration was then given to the Karori route coming down Bowen Street. This is a core route that already has many characteristics of rapid transit. o The route needs to provide fast and direct access to the CBD and therefore not be diverted via the station. o The route must provide access to the parliament precinct therefore must have stops at the northern end of Lambton Quay i.e. the Supreme Court stops. o Passengers must be able to transfer to train and LRT services. Lambton Central provides an opportunity for this. It is not too far to backtrack for passengers not able to or willing to walk to the train from the Supreme Court stops and also allows transfers onto LRT services along the Golden Mile. o As buses cannot use the same right-of-way as LRT the Karori route is diverted via the waterfront using Brandon and Johnston Streets as a one-way pair. A single set of stops are provided between Willeston and Harris Streets with the route then heading up Taranaki Street towards Wallace Street and the south (connecting to the Airport). . This route becomes the primary bus corridor through the CBD with interchanges at Lambton Central and Te Aro Park (corner of Taranaki and Manners) where passengers can transfer between bus and LRT. . The use of the one-way pair and waterfront frees up Featherston and Victoria Streets as well as the remaining waterfront lanes for cycling and vehicle circulation and access. Consideration might be given to making these two-way for general traffic and cyclists.  Consideration was then given to routes coming from the Northern Suburbs. Two routes from Churton Park and Newlands respectively were identified due to the high level of demand

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 107 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

from this area and avoid the need for peak only routes. Both routes will continue to service the Wellington Station interchange, Supreme Court and Lambton Central. o Ideally services will operate as through routes along the waterfront as per the current Karori route but only if there is sufficient demand). At this stage it is assumed that the Churton Park route will continue to the south (to Island Bay) while the Newlands route will terminate at Lambton Central to avoid duplicating the LRT service and to not force more transfers at Wellington Station on the CBD fringe.  Consideration was then given to Island Bay which in the base case is connected to Churton Park in the north. o To maximise connections the Island Bay route needs to connect with the LRT routes at the Hospital. This requires both bus and LRT to operate along a shared section of road between John and Rintoul Streets. o The Island Bay route operates along Wallace Street picking up that catchment before joining the CBD bus corridor as part of the Churton Park route. Passengers can choose to travel to Lambton Central via the waterfront or transferring to LRT at Te Aro Park to access other destinations via LRT or other bus routes.  Consideration was then given to connections to the east. The Hataitai bus tunnel is not available due to LRT from Kilbirnie along that route but in any event a connection is required between Newtown and Kilbirnie along Constable Street. o There are three principal service areas beyond Kilbirnie: Miramar, Seatoun and the Airport. Extending the Karori route from Wallace Street to Newtown and Kilbirnie via Constable Street provides an important connection. This route then continues to Miramar and the Airport connecting two of the three principal service areas with direct services to the CBD with opportunities to transfer to LRT at Kilbirnie and the Hospital. o Passengers travelling from the airport and Miramar are not forced to transfer to LRT but can do so. This will likely reduce the demand projections for LRT but provides a much more robust overall network without forcing multiple transfers for most passengers. o Seatoun and areas in the eastern suburbs are connected to Karori by local feeder bus. Some of these local services should also have the frequent all-day service.  Consideration was then given to Brooklyn, University and southern Karori. o The Brooklyn route would naturally travel directly down Willis Street but this is not possible due to LRT in this constrained area. o The route has therefore been directed down Taranaki Street and the waterfront route. This has the benefit of going through the Te Aro Park interchange where passengers can transfer onto other buses or LRT to travel south or north along the Golden Mile. The higher speed along the waterfront should hopefully makeup in part for the diversion away from Willis Street for those travelling north. o It then makes sense for this route to continue up Bowen Street and along the Terrace to the University and on to Karori South providing some of the key connections in the base case.  Other routes o Other local routes were then added in to provide other connections, including , Oriental Bay, Roseneath etc to align as closely as possible with the base case.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 108 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Demand and capacity analysis

C.1. Passenger demand estimates The demand estimates used in this report are summarised in Table 10.1 (total demand by origin) and Table 10.2 (demand on key network links).

Table 10.1 One-hour public transport passenger demand estimates Total bus and train demand Peak one-hour Inter-peak one-hour Demand Change in demand Change in demand Change in demand Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Journey origin 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 Adelaide / Mt Cook 219 300 464 526 - 37% 112% 141% 120 171 304 337 - 43% 154% 181% Airport 105 421 454 573 - 301% 332% 446% 109 425 459 581 - 291% 322% 434% Berhampore 211 297 359 396 - 41% 70% 88% 40 57 79 89 - 44% 101% 126% CBD 1,751 2,772 4,326 6,258 - 58% 147% 257% 2,036 3,564 6,083 9,314 - 75% 199% 357% Hospital 191 288 358 383 - 51% 88% 101% 106 167 250 265 - 58% 136% 150% Island Bay 443 475 650 840 - 7% 47% 89% 79 86 120 167 - 8% 51% 110% Kilbirnie 419 562 683 778 - 34% 63% 86% 151 210 299 368 - 39% 98% 144% Lyall Bay 202 223 368 440 - 10% 82% 117% 40 43 96 124 - 8% 144% 215% Melrose / Houghton Bay 121 131 247 271 - 8% 105% 125% 12 12 24 27 - 8% 111% 131% Miramar North 600 628 935 1,287 - 5% 56% 115% 110 114 176 250 - 3% 60% 127% Miramar South 399 436 662 942 - 9% 66% 136% 72 79 119 168 - 9% 65% 133% Moxham 167 172 333 320 - 3% 100% 92% 24 25 93 79 - 3% 292% 231% Mt Vic / Roseneath / Oriental / Bays 528 586 902 1,014 - 11% 71% 92% 77 87 206 241 - 13% 168% 212% Newtown 547 852 983 1,116 - 56% 80% 104% 210 348 446 525 - 65% 112% 150% Z_Brooklyn 798 970 1,376 1,711 - 22% 72% 114% 130 165 273 383 - 27% 110% 195% Z_Karori 1,414 1,550 2,365 2,985 - 10% 67% 111% 282 316 531 787 - 12% 88% 179% Z_Khandallah-Ngaio 1,051 1,166 1,841 2,594 - 11% 75% 147% 288 351 914 1,737 - 22% 218% 504% Z_Northern Suburbs 2,128 5,031 5,176 6,125 - 136% 143% 188% 503 1,827 1,952 2,494 - 263% 288% 396% ZZ_Hutt_Valley 5,088 5,596 6,120 6,654 - 10% 20% 31% 1,645 2,079 3,494 6,136 - 26% 112% 273% ZZ_Porirua_Kapiti 3,454 4,880 6,048 7,188 - 41% 75% 108% 371 645 1,010 1,396 - 74% 172% 276% Total 19,835 27,336 34,650 42,400 - 38% 75% 114% 6,403 10,770 16,929 25,467 - 68% 164% 298%

Total bus demand Peak one-hour Inter-peak one-hour Demand Change in demand Change in demand Change in demand Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Journey origin 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 Adelaide / Mt Cook 209 284 421 481 - 36% 102% 131% 115 164 286 318 - 42% 147% 175% Airport 104 407 437 550 - 291% 320% 428% 109 425 459 581 - 291% 322% 434% Berhampore 210 296 356 392 - 41% 69% 86% 40 57 79 89 - 44% 101% 126% CBD 1,639 2,520 3,815 5,404 - 54% 133% 230% 1,785 2,995 4,932 7,389 - 68% 176% 314% Hospital 188 283 345 370 - 51% 84% 97% 103 162 237 252 - 57% 131% 145% Island Bay 437 468 637 812 - 7% 46% 86% 79 86 120 167 - 8% 51% 110% Kilbirnie 418 560 679 773 - 34% 63% 85% 151 210 299 367 - 39% 98% 144% Lyall Bay 202 223 368 439 - 10% 82% 117% 39 43 96 124 - 8% 144% 215% Melrose / Houghton Bay 121 131 247 271 - 8% 104% 124% 12 12 24 27 - 8% 111% 131% Miramar North 599 627 933 1,283 - 5% 56% 114% 109 112 173 244 - 3% 59% 124% Miramar South 385 420 633 888 - 9% 65% 131% 72 79 119 167 - 9% 65% 132% Moxham 166 171 324 313 - 3% 95% 88% 24 25 93 79 - 3% 292% 231% Mt Vic / Roseneath / Oriental / Bays 525 581 874 980 - 11% 67% 87% 75 85 195 227 - 13% 158% 201% Newtown 542 840 965 1,094 - 55% 78% 102% 204 335 426 500 - 64% 109% 145% Z_Brooklyn 772 927 1,256 1,493 - 20% 63% 93% 123 155 243 330 - 25% 97% 167% Z_Karori 1,405 1,539 2,339 2,930 - 10% 67% 109% 281 315 529 784 - 12% 88% 179% Z_Khandallah-Ngaio 683 746 1,038 1,288 - 9% 52% 89% 160 191 448 814 - 19% 179% 408% Z_Northern Suburbs 1,422 3,579 3,707 4,449 - 152% 161% 213% 320 1,152 1,231 1,571 - 261% 285% 392% ZZ_Hutt_Valley 596 656 716 777 - 10% 20% 30% 169 212 349 604 - 25% 106% 257% ZZ_Porirua_Kapiti 55 170 368 584 - 208% 567% 957% 6 12 25 40 - 86% 299% 530% Total 10,678 15,427 20,458 25,570 - 44% 92% 139% 3,977 6,825 10,363 14,672 - 72% 161% 269%

Total rail demand Peak one-hour Inter-peak one-hour Demand Change in demand Change in demand Change in demand Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Base Low Medium High Journey origin 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 2013 2036 2036 2036 Adelaide / Mt Cook 10 17 43 45 - 66% 328% 351% 4 7 18 19 - 66% 328% 351% Airport 1 14 16 24 -1530%1845%2731% 0 0 0 0 - - - - Berhampore 1 1 3 4 - 58% 270% 335% 0 0 0 0 - 58% 270% 335% CBD 111 252 510 853 - 127% 359% 667% 251 569 1,151 1,925 - 127% 359% 667% Hospital 3 6 13 13 - 83% 309% 326% 3 6 13 13 - 83% 309% 326% Island Bay 6 7 13 28 - 14% 102% 348% 0 0 0 0 - 14% 102% 348% Kilbirnie 1 2 4 5 - 56%191%293% 0 0 0 1 - 56%191%293% Lyall Bay 0 0 1 1 - 13%378%576% 0 0 0 0 - 13%378%576% Melrose / Houghton Bay 0 0 0 0 - 7% 350% 383% 0 0 0 0 - 7% 350% 383% Miramar North 1 1 2 4 - 13% 122% 325% 1 2 3 6 - 13% 122% 325% Miramar South 14 16 29 54 - 12% 109% 286% 0 0 0 0 - 12% 109% 286% Moxham 1 1 10 7 - 3%1345%992% 0 0 0 0 - 3%1345%992% Mt Vic / Roseneath / Oriental / Bays 4 5 28 34 - 21% 616% 768% 2 2 11 14 - 21% 616% 768% Newtown 6 11 18 22 - 94% 209% 285% 7 13 20 25 - 94% 209% 285% Z_Brooklyn 26 44 121 218 - 65% 356% 723% 6 11 29 53 - 65% 356% 723% Z_Karori 9 11 26 55 - 24% 189% 510% 1 1 2 4 - 24% 189% 510% Z_Khandallah-Ngaio 367 420 802 1,305 - 14% 119% 255% 127 160 466 923 - 26% 266% 625% Z_Northern Suburbs 705 1,451 1,469 1,676 - 106% 108% 138% 183 674 721 923 - 268% 293% 403% ZZ_Hutt_Valley 4,492 4,940 5,404 5,877 - 10% 20% 31% 1,475 1,867 3,145 5,531 - 27% 113% 275% ZZ_Porirua_Kapiti 3,398 4,710 5,680 6,604 - 39% 67% 94% 365 633 984 1,356 - 74% 170% 272% Total 9,157 11,909 14,192 16,830 - 30% 55% 84% 2,426 3,944 6,566 10,795 - 63% 171% 345%

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 109 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Table 10.2 Public transport passenger demand by network segment AM Peak Inter-peak 2036, Low - AM WPTM - 2036, Medium - AM 2036, High - AM WPTM - Factored, Peak Hour WPTM - Factored, Peak Factored, Peak Hour 2036, Medium - IP Arrivals (7.45am to Hour Arrivals (7.45am to Arrivals (7.45am to 2036, Low - IP WPTM - WPTM - Factored, 2036, High - IP WPTM - 8.45am) 8.45am) 8.45am) Factored, Average Hour Average Hour Factored, Average Hour Demand at specified link In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max

Rail (Hutt) - Wgtn Stn 4,703 160 4,703 4,983 324 4,983 5,110 543 5,110 495 110 495 524 223 524 537 373 537 Rail (Kapiti) - Wgtn Stn 4,200 50 4,200 4,584 100 4,584 4,870 168 4,870 406 226 406 444 458 458 471 765 765 Rail (Johnsonvile) - Wgtn Stn 1,921 325 1,921 2,345 691 2,345 2,987 1,281 2,987 373 678 678 460 1,049 1,049 599 1,659 1,659 Northern suburbs - Wgtn Stn 2,397 357 2,397 2,584 450 2,584 3,033 652 3,033 438 690 690 452 884 884 526 1,277 1,277 Ngaio - Wgtn Stn 874 67 874 1,132 150 1,132 1,359 258 1,359 155 430 430 221 834 834 302 1,363 1,363 Hutt bus - Wgtn Stn 826 689 826 1,084 1,104 1,104 1,360 1,696 1,696 224 899 899 374 1,429 1,429 644 2,295 2,295

Wellington Station - total rail in 10,824 535 10,824 11,913 1,116 11,913 12,967 1,991 12,967 1,274 1,015 1,274 1,428 1,730 1,730 1,608 2,798 2,798 Wellington Station - total bus in 4,097 1,112 4,097 4,800 1,704 4,800 5,753 2,606 5,753 816 2,019 2,019 1,047 3,147 3,147 1,472 4,935 4,935

Wellington Station - Lambton Central 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Karori - Lambton Central 1,468 67 1,468 2,170 150 2,170 2,569 258 2,569 270 430 430 424 834 834 563 1,363 1,363

Lambton Central - Te Aro Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miramar North - Miramar 1,444 270 1,444 1,985 588 1,985 2,688 909 2,688 614 264 614 746 558 746 985 869 985 Seatoun - Miramar 397 86 397 589 181 589 808 278 808 77 76 77 115 156 156 160 238 238 Airport - Miramar 407 45 407 437 96 437 550 158 550 425 63 425 459 135 459 581 222 581

Miramar - total in 2,248 401 2,248 3,012 865 3,012 4,045 1,345 4,045 1,115 403 1,115 1,320 849 1,320 1,726 1,329 1,726

Kilbirnie - Kilbirnie Centre 524 264 524 612 606 612 682 883 883 165 218 218 215 477 477 254 719 719 Miramar - Kilbirnie Centre 1,411 232 1,411 1,921 517 1,921 2,568 777 2,568 602 253 602 725 537 725 944 829 944 Lyall Bay - Kilbirnie Centre 222 12 222 362 29 362 432 42 432 42 24 42 91 54 91 116 81 116

Kilbirnie Centre - total in 2,157 508 2,157 2,896 1,152 2,896 3,682 1,702 3,682 810 495 810 1,031 1,068 1,068 1,314 1,629 1,629 Kilbirnie Centre - total out 1,924 466 1,924 2,435 1,070 2,435 2,839 1,591 2,839 766 437 766 945 957 957 1,175 1,478 1,478

Kilbirnie Centre - Hataitai 10 21 21 19 161 161 30 165 165 4 10 10 7 86 86 11 82 82 Hataitai - Mt Victoria 175 31 175 281 163 281 301 198 301 24 29 29 50 111 111 53 145 145 Mt Victoria - Te Aro Park 560 38 560 758 108 758 842 154 842 76 60 76 141 123 141 162 180 180

Kilbirnie Centre - Te Aro Park (Express) 1,718 306 1,718 2,045 634 2,045 2,298 1,101 2,298 696 343 696 809 705 809 984 1,206 1,206

Kilbirnie Centre - Newtown 197 140 197 371 275 371 511 326 511 66 84 84 129 166 166 180 190 190

Island Bay - Berhampore 590 49 590 853 118 853 1,043 168 1,043 99 92 99 145 188 188 195 289 289 Berhampore - Newtown 879 55 879 1,193 130 1,193 1,417 185 1,417 152 118 152 216 240 240 274 367 367

Newtown - Hospital 2,014 391 2,014 2,527 856 2,527 2,918 1,325 2,918 591 516 591 780 1,089 1,089 918 1,675 1,675 Hospital - Te Aro Park 1,893 552 1,893 2,237 952 2,237 2,518 1,435 2,518 540 514 540 657 966 966 748 1,546 1,546

Te Aro Park - total in 4,171 896 4,171 5,040 1,694 5,040 5,658 2,691 5,658 1,312 917 1,312 1,607 1,794 1,794 1,894 2,931 2,931

Brooklyn - Te Aro Park 915 58 915 1,223 141 1,223 1,433 237 1,433 144 116 144 211 247 247 272 410 410

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 110 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

C.2. Service frequency requirements by network segment The vehicle capacity assumptions in Table C.1 have been used to determine service frequencies for BRT and LRT (refer section 3.6 for further detail). Service frequencies (vehicles per hour) are identified in Table C.2 (BRT) and Table C.3 (LRT) for the three demand scenarios considered in this report.

Table C.1 BRT and LRT vehicle capacity assumptions BRT LRT Nominal capacity 100 218 Peak planning capacity 85 180 Average loading 85% 83% Off-peak planning capacity (BRT 90% of seated and LRT 200% seated) 77 128 Average loading 77% 59%

Table C.2 BRT demand-based frequency requirements (vehicles per hour) by network segment AM Peak Inter-peak 2036, Low - AM WPTM - 2036, Medium - AM 2036, High - AM WPTM - Factored, Peak Hour WPTM - Factored, Peak Factored, Peak Hour 2036, Medium - IP Arrivals (7.45am to Hour Arrivals (7.45am to Arrivals (7.45am to 2036, Low - IP WPTM - WPTM - Factored, 2036, High - IP WPTM - 8.45am) 8.45am) 8.45am) Factored, Average Hour Average Hour Factored, Average Hour Demand at specified link In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max

Rail (Hutt) - Wgtn Stn 56 2 56 59 4 59 61 7 61 7 2 7 7 3 7 7 5 7 Rail (Kapiti) - Wgtn Stn 50 1 50 54 2 54 58 2 58 6 3 6 6 6 6 7 10 10 Rail (Johnsonvile) - Wgtn Stn 23 4 23 28 9 28 36 16 36 5 9 9 6 14 14 8 22 22 Northern suburbs - Wgtn Stn 29 5 29 31 6 31 36 8 36 6 9 9 6 12 12 7 17 17 Ngaio - Wgtn Stn 11 1 11 14 2 14 16 4 16 3 6 6 3 11 11 4 18 18 Hutt bus - Wgtn Stn 10 9 10 13 13 13 17 20 20 3 12 12 5 19 19 9 30 30

Wellington Station - total rail in Wellington Station - total bus in 49 14 49 57 21 57 68 31 68 11 27 27 14 41 41 20 65 65

Wellington Station - Lambton Central 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Karori - Lambton Central 18 1 18 26 2 26 31 4 31 4 6 6 6 11 11 8 18 18

Lambton Central - Te Aro Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miramar North - Miramar 17 4 17 24 7 24 32 11 32 8 4 8 10 8 10 13 12 13 Seatoun - Miramar 5 2 5 7 3 7 10 4 10 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 Airport - Miramar 5 1 5 6 2 6 7 2 7 6 1 6 6 2 6 8 3 8

Miramar - total in 27 5 27 36 11 36 48 16 48 15 6 15 18 12 18 23 18 23

Kilbirnie - Kilbirnie Centre 7 4 7 8 8 8 9 11 11 3 3 3 3 7 7 4 10 10 Miramar - Kilbirnie Centre 17 3 17 23 7 23 31 10 31 8 4 8 10 7 10 13 11 13 Lyall Bay - Kilbirnie Centre 3 1 3 5 1 5 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2

Kilbirnie Centre - total in 26 6 26 35 14 35 44 21 44 11 7 11 14 14 14 18 22 22 Kilbirnie Centre - total out 23 6 23 29 13 29 34 19 34 10 6 10 13 13 13 16 20 20

Kilbirnie Centre - Hataitai 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 Hataitai - Mt Victoria 3 1 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 Mt Victoria - Te Aro Park 7 1 7 9 2 9 10 2 10 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

Kilbirnie Centre - Te Aro Park (Express) 21 4 21 25 8 25 28 13 28 10 5 10 11 10 11 13 16 16

Kilbirnie Centre - Newtown 3 2 3 5 4 5 7 4 7 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

Island Bay - Berhampore 7 1 7 11 2 11 13 2 13 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 Berhampore - Newtown 11 1 11 15 2 15 17 3 17 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5

Newtown - Hospital 24 5 24 30 11 30 35 16 35 8 7 8 11 15 15 12 22 22 Hospital - Te Aro Park 23 7 23 27 12 27 30 17 30 8 7 8 9 13 13 10 21 21

Te Aro Park - total in 50 11 50 60 20 60 67 32 67 18 12 18 21 24 24 25 39 39

Brooklyn - Te Aro Park 11 1 11 15 2 15 17 3 17 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 6 6

Notes: Green highlight = 6 to 60 services per hour (1-10 min headway); Orange highlight = More than 60 services per hour (<1 min headway impact on reliability).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 111 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Table C.3 LRT demand-based frequency requirements (vehicles per hour) by network segment AM Peak Inter-peak 2036, Low - AM WPTM - 2036, High - AM WPTM - Factored, Peak Hour Factored, Peak Hour 2036, Medium - IP Arrivals (7.45am to 2036, Medium - AM WPTM - Factored, Peak Arrivals (7.45am to 2036, Low - IP WPTM - WPTM - Factored, 2036, High - IP WPTM - 8.45am) Hour Arrivals (7.45am to 8.45am) 8.45am) Factored, Average Hour Average Hour Factored, Average Hour Demand at specified link In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max In Out Max

Rail (Hutt) - Wgtn Stn 27 1 27 28 2 28 29 4 29 4 1 4 5 2 5 5 3 5 Rail (Kapiti) - Wgtn Stn 24 1 24 26 1 26 28 1 28 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 Rail (Johnsonvile) - Wgtn Stn 11 2 11 14 4 14 17 8 17 3 6 6 4 9 9 5 13 13 Northern suburbs - Wgtn Stn 14 2 14 15 3 15 17 4 17 4 6 6 4 7 7 5 10 10 Ngaio - Wgtn Stn 5 1 5 7 1 7 8 2 8 2 4 4 2 7 7 3 11 11 Hutt bus - Wgtn Stn 5 4 5 7 7 7 8 10 10 2 8 8 3 12 12 6 18 18

Wellington Station - total rail in Wellington Station - total bus in 23 7 23 27 10 27 32 15 32 7 16 16 9 25 25 12 39 39

Wellington Station - Lambton Central 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Karori - Lambton Central 9 1 9 13 1 13 15 2 15 3 4 4 4 7 7 5 11 11

Lambton Central - Te Aro Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Miramar North - Miramar 9 2 9 12 4 12 15 6 15 5 3 5 6 5 6 8 7 8 Seatoun - Miramar 3 1 3 4 2 4 5 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Airport - Miramar 3 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 5 2 5

Miramar - total in 13 3 13 17 5 17 23 8 23 9 4 9 11 7 11 14 11 14

Kilbirnie - Kilbirnie Centre 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 6 6 Miramar - Kilbirnie Centre 8 2 8 11 3 11 15 5 15 5 2 5 6 5 6 8 7 8 Lyall Bay - Kilbirnie Centre 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kilbirnie Centre - total in 12 3 12 17 7 17 21 10 21 7 4 7 9 9 9 11 13 13 Kilbirnie Centre - total out 11 3 11 14 6 14 16 9 16 6 4 6 8 8 8 10 12 12

Kilbirnie Centre - Hataitai 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hataitai - Mt Victoria 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 Mt Victoria - Te Aro Park 4 1 4 5 1 5 5 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2

Kilbirnie Centre - Te Aro Park (Express) 10 2 10 12 4 12 13 7 13 6 3 6 7 6 7 8 10 10

Kilbirnie Centre - Newtown 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

Island Bay - Berhampore 4 1 4 5 1 5 6 1 6 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Berhampore - Newtown 5 1 5 7 1 7 8 2 8 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Newtown - Hospital 12 3 12 15 5 15 17 8 17 5 5 5 7 9 9 8 14 14 Hospital - Te Aro Park 11 4 11 13 6 13 14 8 14 5 5 5 6 8 8 6 13 13

Te Aro Park - total in 24 5 24 29 10 28 32 15 32 11 8 11 13 15 15 15 23 23

Brooklyn - Te Aro Park 6 1 6 7 1 7 8 2 8 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4

Notes: Green highlight = 6 to 60 services per hour (1-10 min headway); Orange highlight = More than 60 services per hour (<1 min headway impact on reliability).

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 112 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Travel times

D.1. Wellington Station to Airport Figure 10.1 shows the travel time between Wellington Station and the airport reducing by 9 minutes 6 seconds under Option 1 where route X2 operates via the Hataitai tunnel. The LRT options, which operate via Newtown, also provide travel time savings but the Hataitai route remains the fastest. The travel time under Option 4A, which includes two new tunnels, is still 45 seconds longer than Option 1 via the existing Hataitai bus tunnel. Option 1 provides the fastest travel time as is the most direct route. Options 3 and 4 also provide significant savings, although not as many as option 1 due to operating through constrained areas. The Waterfront provides a 1-minute saving between option 4 and 3. Tunnels make some improvement but still less than option 1.

Figure 10.1 Travel time comparison between Station and Airport (red lines are LRT)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 113 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

D.2. Wellington Station to Kilbirnie Figure 10.2 shows the travel time between Wellington Station and Kilbirnie via the Hataitai tunnel. Option 1 has the fastest travel time, saving 9 minutes 6 seconds compared to the base. Options 3 and 4 are at least 2 minutes longer than Option 1 but the bus route in these options is still faster to Kilbirnie than the LRT route via the Hospital (except for Option 4A with tunnels which is 34 seconds faster than the option 4A bus route via Hataitai).

Figure 10.2 Travel time comparison between Station and Kilbirnie via Hataitai

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 114 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

D.3. Wellington Station to Hospital via Taranaki Street Figure 10.3 shows the travel time between Wellington Station and Hospital via Taranaki and Wallace Streets. This is a slow route in the base case and all options provide travel time savings of between 7 to 9 minutes.

Figure 10.3 Travel time comparison between Station and Hospital via Taranaki Street

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 115 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

D.4. Wellington Station to Hospital via Cambridge Terrace Figure 10.4 shows the travel times via Kent/Cambridge Terrace which are similar to the route via Taranaki Street, in part due to assumption of no grade separation at the Basin Reserve. Under Option 4/4A there are no services along the southern end of Kent/Cambridge Terrace.

Figure 10.4 Travel time comparison between Station and Hospital via Cambridge Terrace (red lines are LRT)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 116 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Selected concept designs This appendix provides concept designs that were prepared to test and inform the development of the public transport network options.

E.1. Lambton Central Interchange Lambton Central is an important destination and interchange location. The Golden Mile and Waterfront spines meet at this location to allow passengers to transfer without having to travel to Wellington Station. A concept design was prepared for Lambton Central Interchange as shown in Figure E.1 to test the road space requirements and interaction of services.

Figure E.1 Lambton Central Interchange concept design

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 117 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

E.2. Te Aro Park Interchange Te Aro Park is an important interchange location. The Golden Mile and Waterfront spines meet at this location to allow passengers to transfer. A concept design was prepared for Lambton Central Interchange as shown in Figure E.2 to test the road space requirements and interaction of services. A key feature is that there are no turning movements at the intersection which means approximately 50% green time at the lights is possible for all vehicles and pedestrians.

Figure E.2 Te Aro Park Interchange concept design

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 118 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

E.3. Hospital Interchange The hospital is a key interchange location for all network options. Public transport is required to service both the Adelaide Road and Wallace Street corridors to the north, with connections to Island Bay and Kilbirnie via Constable Street to the south and east. General traffic lanes are required to be retained in this location and in the LRT options LRT and BRT will be required to operate in the same lanes but have different stop platform requirements. As this is a key interchange the stops should be located together and not split. Figure E.3 shows the existing hospital interchange, which has a cross section of 27m. A centre- aligned BRT interchange is shown in Figure E.4 and requires a cross-section of 31m. An LRT interchange requires a cross-section of 33m as shown in Figure E.5. The stops are located together to facilitate transfers at his key interchange.

Figure E.3 Hospital interchange existing (27m cross-section)

Figure E.4 Hospital interchange with BRT (31m cross-section)

Figure E.5 Hospital interchange with LRT (33m cross-section)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 119 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

E.4. Zoo terminus for LRT The LRT options have assumed a zoo terminus for the LRT scenario. The adds approximately 1.5km to the route between the hospital and zoo. The reasons for a zoo terminus are:  Serves a high-density catchment and supports the role of Newtown as a town centre. The southern end of Newtown would otherwise only have a local bus service which would forgo a potential opportunity for transit-oriented development with only a small extension required from the hospital.  Provides a logical terminus for the corridor where vehicles can layover and re-enter service away from the primary passenger interchange at the hospital. This provides greater flexibility for matching service levels to demand.  Local bus services to the south can connect at the zoo and avoid additional buses operating through to the hospital and turning at John Street. Other considerations:  Light rail will likely have to mix with local traffic through along southern end of Riddiford Street and along Mansfield Street. This can be acceptable at the end of a route where only a small number of passengers are affected provided that reliability on the rest of the route can be maintained.  An option that might be worth considering is turning one block of Riddiford Street between Constable Street and Newtown Ave into a for light rail stops. Local traffic could be diverted down Constable or Wilson Street, Newtown Avenue and Daniell Street.  The section of LRT through Newtown could be a single-track operation in the most constrained areas while still delivering a 5 to 10-minute headway in each direction. Headways could be reduced further with a shorter single-track section or providing a loop via Daniell Street (subject to further investigation). A concept design has not been prepared at this stage.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 120 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

E.5. Basin reserve priority measures In all options the Basin reserve has assumed to remain at grade with limited public transport priority measures. Figure E.6 provides a concept design for how a significantly improved level of public transport priority could be provided at the Basin Reserve largely within the existing road reserve and potentially with limited impact on general traffic (further work required to confirm traffic impacts). All the network options require 16-24 vehicles per hour to operate via the Basin Reserve in each direction during peak periods. For this number of vehicle movements signal pre-emption could potentially allow a virtually non-stop public transport service with very little impact on general traffic.

Figure E.6 Basin Reserve priority measures

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 121 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

E.6. Newtown shops The at Northcote High Street in Melbourne (refer Figure E.7) provides an example of what could be provided at Newtown in Wellington (refer Figure E.8). The width of the road corridor in both Northcote and Newtown is approximately 20m. Separate traffics lanes could be provided in place of parking at the Newtown Shops, as shown in Figure E.9. This would avoid the LRT from mixing with general traffic in this location.

Figure E.7 Northcote tram stop in Melbourne (High St at Westgarth St)

Figure E.8 Newtown in Wellington (Riddiford St looking south to Constable St)

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 122 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure E.9 Potential Newtown Shops LRT stop replacing parking with traffic lanes

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 123 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Corridor alignment and stop diagrams This appendix sets out potential corridor alignments within the study area. The alignments take account of the options for priority identified by Opus as part of Let’s Get Wellington Moving. These are concept designs only and further engineering assessment will be required.

F.1. Option 3 LRT via Golden Mile and Kent/Cambridge

F.1.1. Wellington Station to Hunter Street Figure F.1 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Wellington Station and Hunter Street.

F.1.2. Hunter Street to Te Aro Park Interchange Figure F.2 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Wellington Station and Hunter Street.

F.1.3. Te Aro Park Interchange to The Basin Figure F.3 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Te Aro Park Interchange and The Basin.

F.1.4. The Basin to John Street Figure F.4 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between The Basin and John Street.

F.1.5. John Street to Newtown Shops Figure F.5 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between John Street and the Newtown Shops.

F.1.6. Newtown Shops to Zoo Figure F.6 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between the Newtown Shops and Zoo.

F.1.7. Zoo to Kilbirnie Figure F.7 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between the Zoo and Kilbirnie.

F.1.8. Kilbirnie to Airport This section of the corridor has not been mapped due to time constraints. The assumption is two- way centre running along this route between Kilbirnie and the Airport via Miramar.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 124 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.1 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between Wellington Station and Hunter Street

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 125 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.2 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between Hunter Street and Te Aro Park Interchange

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 126 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.3 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between Te Aro Park Interchange and The Basin

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 127 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.4 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between The Basin and John Street

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 128 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.5 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between John Street and Newtown shops

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 129 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.6 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between Newtown shops and Zoo

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 130 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.7 Potential Option 3 corridor alignment between Zoo and Kilbirnie

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 131 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

F.2. Option 4 LRT via Waterfront and Taranaki Street

F.2.1. Wellington Station to Hunter Street Figure F.8 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Wellington Station and Hunter Street. Key points to note:  The Waterfront corridor has been directed via Stout Street (corridor is via northern end of Lambton Quay in other options) to provide a slightly more direct route (assuming a terminal at Bunny Street). Under a LRT/BRT option this route avoids the two modes sharing a short section of right-of-way past the Supreme Court stops but means less parking and access for general traffic.  General traffic is excluded from the Golden Mile and southern end of Customhouse Quay. Locations where public transport and general traffic cross are shown in the figure.  Traffic signals will likely be required at the Brandon St/Lambton Quay intersection to manage conflicting public transport movements. This could be tied in with pedestrian crossing phases. Under a LRT/BRT the two modes will share a small section of right-of-way past the north-bound stop on Lambton Quay to allow Golden Mile vehicles to pass vehicles stopped at the stop.  Traffic signals will likely also be required at Stout St/Lambton Quay to manage conflicting public transport movements.  Featherston and Victoria Streets become two-way.

F.2.2. Hunter Street to Te Aro Park Interchange Figure F.9 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Wellington Station and Hunter Street. Key points to note:  Waterfront corridor and general traffic lanes follow Jervois Quay to Taranaki Street intersection with Wakefield Street becoming two-way with two-lanes in each direction. Cable Street no longer connects directly to Jervois Quay and becomes a two-way local road.  Waterfront stop located on Jervois Quay between Harris and Willeston Streets to provide easy access to the CBD. This is also mid-way between the Lambton Central and Te Aro Park interchanges. It may not be possible to maintain four traffic lanes plus two public transport lanes plus stop facilities in this block. Further detailed design consideration required.  Featherston and Victoria Streets become two-way.  All general traffic removed from Willis Street north of the Willis/Boulcott/Manners intersection. Boulcott Street traffic has access to Willis Street south and can access CBD via Dixon Street and two-way Victoria/Featherston Streets.  Preventing turning movements at the Taranaki/Manners/Courtenay intersection maximises green time for public transport and pedestrians. But if any Taranaki Street bus routes are required to operate along the Golden Mile then these turning movements will be required.  No general traffic access on Courtenay Place between Taranaki Street and Tory Street.

F.2.3. Te Aro Park Interchange to The Basin Figure F.10 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between Te Aro Park Interchange and The Basin.

F.2.4. The Basin to John Street Figure F.11 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between The Basin and John Street.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 132 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

F.2.5. John Street to Newtown Shops Figure F.12 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between John Street and the Newtown Shops.

F.2.6. Newtown Shops to Zoo Figure F.13 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between the Newtown Shops and Zoo.

F.2.7. Zoo to Kilbirnie Figure F.14 shows a potential corridor alignment and stops between the Zoo and Kilbirnie.

F.2.8. Kilbirnie to Airport This section of the corridor has not been mapped due to time constraints. The assumption is two- way centre running along this route between Kilbirnie and the Airport via Miramar.

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 133 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.8 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between Wellington Station and Hunter Street

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 134 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.9 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between Hunter Street and Te Aro Park Interchange

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 135 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.10 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between Te Aro Park Interchange and The Basin

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 136 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.11 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between The Basin and John Street

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 137 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.12 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between John Street and Newtown shops

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 138 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.13 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between Newtown shops and Zoo

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 139 of 140 Ian Wallis Associates Ltd

Figure F.14 Potential Option 4 corridor alignment between Zoo and Kilbirnie

LGWM rapid transit network options final draft.docx Page 140 of 140