Wellington City Bus Review Stakeholder Consultation External

Wellington City Bus Review

Stakeholder Consultation External Report

Prepared by Premium Research for: Greater Wellington Regional Council

March 2011

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction...... 3 1.1 Background...... 3 1.2 This Report...... 3 2.0 Approach ...... 4 3.0 Findings – Organisations...... 6 3.1 Travel and Leisure Sector ...... 6 3.2 Businesses and Business Organisations ...... 7 3.3 Health Organisations...... 8 3.4 Tertiary Education Institutions ...... 11 4.0 Findings – Bus Drivers ...... 13 5.0 Findings – User Groups...... 15 5.1 Workplace Travel Planners...... 15 5.2 User Representatives...... 16 5.3 Public Consultation Focus Group...... 17 5.4 Disability Focus Group...... 19 5.5 Rita Angus Retirement Village Residents ...... 20 5.6 Malvina Major Retirement Village Residents ...... 21 6.0 Conclusions...... 22 Appendix 1 ...... 24 Appendix 2 ...... 26

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Greater Wellington has an ongoing programme of area-wide public transport service reviews, in accordance with policies laid out in the Regional Passenger Transport Plan. The programme requires that all scheduled passenger transport services be reviewed at least once every five years, to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the community and reflect any changes such as shifts in demand. These reviews are not a statutory requirement.

Area-wide reviews provide an opportunity to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the public transport network within a larger geographical area. They take a short to medium term view, focus on operational improvements to the network, and look to achieve these within existing public transport budgets.

The Wellington City Bus Review (initially named the Wellington Public Transport Review) commenced in 2009 and is planned for completion in 2011. It encompasses the urban areas of Wellington City, south of Takapu Road in Grenada North. The review focuses on bus services, and their integration with rail services (particularly the Johnsonville railway line), harbour ferry services within Wellington, and the cable car.

1.2 This Report

This report documents the findings of the stakeholder consultation task of the Initial Consultation Stage of the review. It supplements the findings of the public consultation task. The findings will be used to determine public perceptions of public transport issues and needs, and guide possible changes to services.

Greater Wellington has separately undertaken direct consultation with:

• Wellington City Council • Public transport operators • Greater Wellington’s Ara Tahi inter-iwi representative group • Residents and progressive associations • High schools.

The findings of the consultation undertaken exclusively by Greater Wellington are not included in this report.

2.0 Approach

Stakeholder consultation was undertaken between November 2009 and February 2010. Greater Wellington identified the stakeholders to include in the review and commissioned Premium Research to facilitate the consultation. Premium Research, generally accompanied by Greater Wellington, met with each of the stakeholders and facilitated a discussion about Wellington public transport. The discussion guides used for these sessions are included as Appendix 1 and 2 to this document.

Stakeholders consulted as part of this process were divided into three groups: organisations with an interest in public transport, bus drivers, and user groups. Discussions with organisations followed an interview format, whilst those with bus drivers and user groups used a discussion group or workshop format.

The organisations consulted with were:

• Wellington International Airport • Positively Wellington Tourism • New Zealand Retailers Association • Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce • Regional Public Health • Capital Coast and District Health Board • Capital Coast and District Health Maori Partnership Board • Hutt Valley District Health Board • Victoria University of Wellington • Massey University • Sport Wellington • Park Road Post (representing the Miramar-based film industry).

With the exception of a telephone discussion with Sport Wellington, discussions with each stakeholder were in person and took between 30 and 90 minutes to conduct.

Bus driver workshops were held with:

• Go Wellington bus drivers • Mana/Newlands bus drivers.

User group workshops were held with:

• Workplace travel planners • User representatives • A public consultation focus group • A disability focus group • Malvina Major Retirement Home residents • Rita Angus Retirement Home residents.

The discussion groups with retirement home residents were held at their place of residence. The discussion groups with users and disability representatives were held at the Regional Council Centre.

The interviews took between one and two hours to conduct. Most interviews and discussion groups were audio recorded, with permission of the participants. In a few instances discussions were recorded by note-taking.

3.0 Findings – Organisations

3.1 Travel and Leisure Sector

Tourists to Wellington are perceived as making little use of public transport, because it is difficult to understand how to access places of interest using public transport and because most tourists either do solely city-based activities or have access to private transport. There are perceived gaps in:

• Public transport links between the wharves that cruise ships use and the central city • Public transport serving Zealandia, the Zoo, and city destinations • Public transport serving the Airport - The Airport Flyer (‘the Flyer’) is limited to just one route, which has limited hours of service and does not always run to schedule.

This sector perceives that the key constraints preventing the provision of a good public transport service for Wellington are the limitations of the road network. The key issue is perceived to be delays in traffic flow in the following places:

• Golden Mile • Hataitai • Evans Bay intersection • Newtown • Basin Reserve • Constable Street.

There is a perception that there will be an increase in demand for public transport services from this sector in the future, particularly for access to the airport. The increased demand will be driven by a substantial increase in people travelling through the airport (forecast to be as high as double the current number of people within 20 years), and the difficulty of providing additional car parking facilities to match this increase. Consideration may therefore need to be given to such enhancements as:

• Expanding the current Airport Flyer Service – hours of service and routes (i.e. Hutt Valley, Island Bay, Porirua and the Kapiti Coast) • Extending other public transport services to incorporate the airport • Potentially light rail.

There is a perception from the sector that demand for public transport to access participation in sport facilities will increase over time – largely as a result of population growth and the resulting increase in congestion of main thoroughfares.

Possible (but currently unsubstantiated) issues may be:

• Access to the Hataitai netball courts using public transport • Access to the new sporting facility in Kilbirnie using public transport • Increasing congestion in weekend traffic in the main thoroughfares in the eastern suburbs • Access to participating in sport for people who do not have access to a car.

3.2 Businesses and Business Organisations

Public transport is considered to be an important issue for organisations representing businesses. The business organisations are lobbied by their members to consider transport issues (though the views of their members are sometimes polarised). The organisations also tend to be active in making submissions about transport issues.

Public transport is primarily regarded as serving commuters, rather than shoppers, i.e. it is seen as the means by which people get from the outer suburbs to Wellington in order to work, rather than to shop. However, it is recognised that those who work in the city spend money in the city, and this is therefore important to inner city businesses.

Businesses and their representative organisations have a wide range of views of public transport:

• Retailers tend to think it is relatively easy to get into the city via public transport and, if anything, are worried about the proliferation of buses in the CBD – particularly during peak hours.

• Retailers would not be supportive of a decision to curtail investment in the public transport network. If this were to happen, an increased number of people would need to drive and parking would subsequently become an issue. There would not, however, be a call to have weekend services increased from a retail perspective (including services to malls).

There is a perception that both road and public transport demand will grow. Strategies suggested for meeting this demand and improving public transport services included:

• Public transport hubs at either end of the Golden Mile and buses from the suburbs would then service the hubs. There would be a ring road/inner city commuter service, rather than buses coming through the CBD. • Electronic ticketing. • Smaller buses (for increased flexibility and reduction in road congestion). • Access via bus back doors. • Widening of Ruahine Street (on the Ngauranga to airport route). • Increase in the number of bus lanes.

The primary weakness of current public transport services is considered to be reliability. Research (surveying the general public) has identified that most people want public transport to be invested in and improved upon. The primary improvements sought are improvements to the reliability and frequency of services.

Other issues identified are:

• Airport Flyer: increasing frequency and offering a direct route between the Airport and the city. • Extending services to the Interislander ferry terminal for ferry and cruise line passengers. • Making use of bus lanes more flexible, e.g. allowing taxis to use the lanes and allow cars to use the lanes in off peak times. • Making Bond Street part of the public transport route.

• Difficulty making cross-suburb journeys. • Difficulty making multi-mode journeys. • Difficulty using public transport to access the Miramar movie industry workplaces (infrequent services, services not operating during school holidays, lack of shelter, inability to use ‘not in service’ buses).

3.3 Health Organisations

Transport is a key contributing factor (particularly in big cities) to health and wellbeing through a number of pathways:

• The key one is in addressing the concern that people are not as physically active as they should be and tend to use the car to travel reasonably short distances, when it would be desirable for people to walk/cycle/use some form of public transport (or some combination of these). Many of the public transport plans around the world have the goal that the main form of transport should be walking or a combination of walking and public transport (e.g. London) – and this is what Regional Public Health would like to aim for. Public transport is normally accessed via a 5- 10 minute walk to a bus stop. There is clear evidence that people will walk more and be more physically active, when they are public transport users, than they would when going out by private car. In addition to the physical health benefits, they tend to have more social interaction so there are mental health benefits too (people are in fresh air/nature and in their community and this helps with stress levels and general mental health).

• Safety – the issue of injury and death from road crashes is an important public health issue.

• To maintain health, people need access to a number of essential services, including social wellbeing needs – for example, going to the Doctor, library etc. This extends to those that have physical disabilities. Regional Public Health are also very concerned about disparities in health – i.e. Maori and Pacific Island people have relatively worse health and these are the people that rely on public transport, hence Regional Public Health is interested in the barriers to public transport for these groups.

• The role public transport potentially plays in reducing greenhouse gases and mitigating climate change.

Overall Wellington City is perceived to be well serviced by public transport and plans to continue to increase accessibility to public transport are welcomed. Proposed improvements include:

• Increasing the quality of infrastructure. • Incorporating public transport requirements into district plan updates. • Introduction of a real time information system. • Integrated ticketing (at a national level).

The strengths of the current public transport system are considered to be:

• The use of trains and the improvement of services at Wellington Railway Station. • The compact nature of Wellington and the willingness of local authorities to plan around transport hubs and key centres. • That Wellington City Council is conscious that urban development needs to go hand in hand with the public transport system improvements. • A culture of using public transport, even if it is rundown.

The weaknesses of public transport are considered to be:

• A perception of weak leadership from Greater Wellington Regional Council, which is allowing private suppliers of public transport services to dominate decision making (e.g. the Johnsonville train line is undermined by buses that compete with the train). • An expectation from the public that journeys should be made by single vehicle or mode - the public need to be encouraged to accept an interchange model. • ‘Golden Mile’ congestion: it takes too long to travel through the CBD on a bus, which needs to be significantly improved. • Lack of an ongoing investment programme in public transport. • Unreliability of services. • Lack of focus on providing services to high need communities (e.g. Newtown, Kilbirnie and Strathmore). • Lack of flexibility in bus routes. • Lack of a rapid transport system into town from the airport. • Lack of weather-proof bus stops. • Height of some bus stops. • Affordability of public transport. • Appropriateness of public transport services for high school children: Snapper Cards and drivers taking responsibility for students. • Lack of connectivity between services. In particular better train and school bus connections. • Lack of integrated ticketing. • Some bus shelters are regarded as unsafe (lack of light) or there are not enough shelters. • Signage at bus stops is considered critical and not always sufficient or in Te Reo. • Lack of cross city links (for instance from Porirua to Johnsonville). • Lack of connecting services and transferring between services seems to be difficult. • The Route planner is hard to use and can be confusing.

The weaknesses of public transport having an impact on people travelling to/from health care sites are:

• Inability to offer staff public transport ‘vouchers’ which can easily be controlled. • Service provided by drivers could be improved. Drivers need to learn more about how to look after people on the bus (e.g. unwell people). • Mental health patients (and others with special needs) are not supported on the bus, (particularly by bus drivers). • Reliability of public transport services (particularly train services). Using public transport is stressful when users cannot rely on public transport to be on time. • Lack of access to buses for people with disabilities. Access from the bus stop to Wellington hospital entrance (steps). • It is difficult to co-ordinate hospital appointments with the available public transport. Getting home after appointments appears to be difficul (particularly for elderly and those with mobility issues). • Lack of services to Marae (e.g. Tapu Te Ranga Marae, Island Bay) and Maori Health providers in the community (noting that there is likely to be increasing use of community based health services in the future).

The weaknesses of public transport specific to hospitals are:

• Public transport access from other parts of the region and other regions to Wellington Hospital is considered to be difficult. Services are currently provided by Red Cross and Wellington Free Ambulance. • Lack of services for staff working night shifts at Wellington Hospital. • Lack of services connecting the Hutt Valley with Wellington Hospital. • The Airport Flyer does not go past Wellington Hospital. • Hutt Hospital is not well serviced by public transport. Staff, patients and visitors to the Hutt Hospital tend to make little use of public transport. • It is difficult to make a journey between Wellington City and Hutt Hospital using public transport because multiple services need to be used and the services are not well connected (e.g. there are often long waits between the services). • Concerns about personal security while waiting at the Queensgate bus stop. • The reduction in frequency of the Airport Flyer Service going via Hutt Hospital. • Using public transport to get between Hutt Hospital and Wellington Hospital is difficult. • Absence of clear signage in Wellington City noting which bus services go via Hutt Hospital. • Train services not stopping at Epuni (closest stop to Hutt Hospital) and the fare boundary is between Waterloo and Epuni stations. • No signage at Epuni Station noting that it is the closest stop to Hutt Hospital.

Key issues going forward are considered to be:

• Accessibility to health services for people from low decile households. This may potentially involve offering services at alternative or local sites. • Centralisation of some services within the region. • Prevention work around healthy eating and exercise – so any transport system should cater for bikes and pedestrians.

Proposed solutions to public transport issues:

• For Golden Mile congestion: light rail between the railway station and Wellington Hospital; cars not permitted in the central city; and dedicated bus route. • Working with communities to modify attitudes to public transport so changes like removing parking from the Newtown thoroughfare can be achieved. • Keeping abreast of changing demand for public transport origins/destinations/routes/times. • Increase direct routes (e.g. Airport, sports facility in Kilbirnie). • Increase speed of journey times (reduce Golden Mile congestion). • Increase bus service frequency.

3.4 Tertiary Education Institutions

Some tertiary education campuses are regarded as being well served by public transport and others are not:

• The Pipitea and Te Aro Victoria University Campuses are able to use public transport serving the Central Business District and are therefore considered to be well serviced. • The Victoria University Kelburn Campus has direct services from some suburbs and a feeder service from the Railway Station and is considered to be the highest priority for improved public transport services. • The relatively small Victoria University Karori Campus is considered to be the least well serviced by public transport. • The Massey University Campus students and staff make heavy use of public transport. The reliability and frequency of services to the Campus is considered to be insufficient.

The key improvements to public transport services sought by tertiary education institutions are:

• Better co-ordination of bus timetables with lecture times (recognising staggered lecture start times across campuses). • Inter- campus bus links. • Lower fares for students. • More suburbs with direct bus links to the Kelburn Campus (Brooklyn, Hataitai, Johnsonville/Wadestown). • Increased capacity of services between the railway station and Kelburn. • Provision of an electronic inter-campus ticket. • Better coverage of services in the evenings (recognising demand for services beyond the conventional rush hour) and weekends. • Improved personal safety at stops and getting to/from stops (lighting, walking in Newtown/Hopper Street). • Improved connections (timing) between buses and trains. • Improved off-peak services (some institutions now need to operate at off-peak times to meet the increase demand for courses from students).

Generic improvements sought by the institutions are:

• Greater reliability (primary issue) • Greater frequency • Better value/cheaper • Quicker travel times • More direct routes • Shelter at bus stops • More comfort on board.

4.0 Findings – Bus Drivers

The drivers perceived the strengths of public transport in Wellington to be: bus drivers, customer service, frequency of services, coverage of services, affordability of services, resident’s willingness to use public transport and bus priority infrastructure (bus lanes and B lights).

The drivers perceived the weaknesses of public transport in Wellington to be: the length of some routes, congestion during peak hours, congestion in Newtown and the Golden Mile, congestion through the spine, insufficient policing of bus lanes, short bus stops, lack of weekend coverage, cyclists riding on bus routes, bus stop positioning in the Golden Mile, Adshels, personal safety at bus stops, short bus stops and poles blocking bus access to stops.

The following improvements were suggested to address some of the weaknesses:

• Add a clearway on Adelaide Road to aid flow of afternoon peak traffic. • Police bus lanes. • Increase bus stops to a minimum of 17 metres in length, to allow buses to pull into the curb. • Ban private transport through the Golden Mile, possibly in peak times only. • Ban cyclists from bus routes and bus lanes. Register all cyclists (highly visible registration IDs). • Add a bus stop outside the central Information Centre. • Improve the weather-proofing and lighting for bus shelters (suggestion of a sensor pad to trigger lighting). • Place poles and rubbish bins away from where buses need to nose in to come close to the curb. • Lower the northbound platform at Johnsonville Station.

The following changes to individual routes were suggested:

• Add or increase services to: Happy Valley (vans), Kowhai Park, Mount Victoria and Maupia. • Add a Bays connector (Scorching, Breaker, and Island Bays through to Happy Valley). • Service suggested from Kowhai Park, around the Bays, to Seatoun. • Service suggested between Johnsonville and the Hutt Valley. • Service suggested from Courtenay Place through Northland, Khandallah and Johnsonville to Lower Hutt. • Redirect Route 45 to serve Crofton Downs and Bowen Hospital, or extend it to Broadmeadows. • Add feeder services through the hills of Ngaio and Crofton Downs. • Add a weekend service for Broadmeadows. • Keep Route 49 services consistent seven days a week (offer the weekday timetable on the weekends) to increase consistency and reduce down time. • Provide more services to Strathmore in the morning and afternoon peak periods. • Add more services to the Khandallah evening peak time. • Align Khandallah Sunday timetables with those of the weekdays. • Avoid buses leaving together on Route 1. • Extend Route 14 to the Airport Retail Park. • Increase frequency of Route 21. • Reduce the number of stops the Island Bay Express makes (nothing from Luxford Street to Hall Street). • Add an express bus to Island Bay via Happy Valley.

• Improve consistency of timetabling and spacing of services through Newtown and Kilbirnie. • Use Saturday timetables on public holidays. • Extend some services to Wellington Hospital (Routes 52 and 54). • Split the Churton Park route into two routes, one for North and one for South and extend the services into the new development areas north of Churton Park. • Extend Route 52 to the Dress Circle. • Extend services to the top of Grenada Village (new housing development). • Extend some of the Johnsonville West services to north Ohariu Road (north of Erris Street). • Provide services linking Johnsonville (and possibly Porirua) to the Hutt Valley.

The drivers were asked about the challenges of providing reliable bus services. Drivers said that they were generally able to keep to the prescribed timetables for off peak services. But, about a third of afternoon peak services do not run on time. The key causes of delays were identified as congestion around the Basin Reserve, through Newtown and around the Bays.

Solutions identified for reducing delays in services were:

• Adding more bus priority measures, for instance B lights along the whole of Golden Mile, B lights at Wellington Hospital, B lights at the Riddiford/John Street intersection. • Better light sequencing at the Adelaide Road/Luxford intersection for North bound traffic. • Adding pedestrian lights on Glenmore Street. • Multi- flagging at bus stops. • Bus lanes on motorways. • An interchange on the Golden Mile. • Improving Mercer Street lighting sequences. • Improving the prominence of B signals.

The drivers were asked about the challenges of offering access to buses for people with physical disabilities. The drivers talked about inconsistency in the services offered to people with disabilities, because some drivers are more skilled in aiding people with disabilities than others. Drivers expressed concern that it is not always possible to pull in parallel to the curb because of short bus stops and barriers (e.g. poles and rubbish bins), difficulty seeing waiting passengers in wheel chairs and the width of electric wheel chairs.

Drivers were also asked about the challenges of offering services to people with children in buggies. The drivers expressed frustration with parents insisting on bringing large, un-collapsed buggies onto buses and suggested education advising them not to do this.

5.0 Findings – User Groups

5.1 Workplace Travel Planners

This group was based around Greater Wellington’s Workplace Travel Plan group and included representatives from: Hutt City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, Department of Labour, Archives New Zealand, Opus, NZ Transport Agency, Victoria University of Wellington, Department of Conservation, and the Open Polytechnic.

Participants were asked to identify the characteristics and features of an ideal public transport network:

• The characteristics identified were: reliable, convenient, affordable, clean and quiet, modern, fast, well used, frequent, regular, friendly and family oriented.

• Features of an ideal public transport network included: smart/integrated ticketing, bus lanes, no cars in the Central Business District, traffic lights giving priority to buses, low floor buses with wide doors at the back and the front, low emission fuels, trolley buses, good employment conditions for drivers, sufficient capacity, discount price offers and integrated planning to incorporate walking/cycling/trains/buses.

Participants regard the strengths of the current public transport network to be: the existence of the public transport network, trolley buses, cable cars, regular services, low cost services, airport service, express services, interesting train routes, good coverage, attractive bus routes (e.g. Routes 14 and 24), public transport culture, and services for stadium events.

Participants regard the weaknesses of the public transport network to be: lack of public transport in the weekends, lack of investment in the rail network, difficulty alighting buses with children, lack of integrated ticketing, quality of some vehicles (buses), lack of integration between services, unreliable services (services not arriving on time), unsafe train and bus stops (transient dwellers, lack of lighting).

The key changes participants would like to have made to public transport in Wellington were:

• Infrastructure changes that will allow buses to be more reliable and faster (i.e. bus lanes, bus priority at traffic signals). • More services like the Airport Flyer (quality of seating, the room available, working air conditioning, wireless Internet). • Greater consistency across services (i.e. it doesn’t matter where you are coming from or the time of day, but you know what to expect of the service). • Reduce overcrowding – (e.g. Route 31, Karori buses, Courtenay Place in the morning, Route 14 in the morning). • Wider doors on buses. • Improve bus drivers attitude – would be nice to have a pleasant service/experience when you get on the bus.

Comments on individual services were as follows:

• The areas participants think are not currently well serviced by public transport are: Crofton Downs, Wellington Public Library, Evans Bay Parade on the weekends and Houghton Bay. • Direct routes are sought for the new indoor sports centre in Kilbirnie and between Newtown and Miramar. • More frequent services are sought for: Route 3, Route 23 and Route 83. Routes 2 and 5 need to run at alternate times rather than at the same time. • More services are sought for: Route 2 and Route 31 between 6.30am and 7am, Route 8 after 6.45pm, Route 24 services later in the evening, Johnsonville trains between 4.30pm and 6pm. • It was proposed that Route 24 be serviced with a minibus, because of low use at certain times and the narrow route.

Some participants felt that public transport did not work well in the weekends, but others questioned whether there was sufficient demand to warrant additional weekend services. A possible consideration was Saturday morning services to access sports facilities in Hataitai and Melrose.

Highest priority: for most participants reliability was the highest priority. Other issues were: integration of bus/train, customer service, speed of journey thought the CBD, getting cars out of the way of buses.

5.2 User Representatives

Four regular commentators on public transport services attended this workshop.

Overall, participants perceived that Wellington is well serviced by public transport. They were divided on whether the service was continuing to get better or starting to deteriorate. However, they commented favourably on the improvements in vehicle quality, route coverage and the high level of use of public transport in Wellington. Participants were critical of the increased unreliability of the services, slowness in adding bus lanes, complexity of the system (hard to understand) and limited penetration.

Participants also commented on the perceived lack of integration of services. There is a perception that the focus is on individual services rather than creating a network. Likewise participants commented that the authorities and companies responsible for the services seem to work in silos rather than collaboratively.

Participants perceive that the strengths of the current public transport offer for Wellington are: the provision of express services, high use of the services, availability of timetable information, standard of vehicles, frequency of services in some areas (e.g. Newtown), and staff working on public transport.

The key weaknesses of the current public transport offer for Wellington were identified as:

• Service frequency: low service in off-peak times (particularly weekends) and on some corridors in the week. • Information: lack of information about days of operation at bus stops. • Coverage: poor coverage in Maupuia, and off the main road in Karori on weekends. • Integration: lack of integration between bus and train timetables. • Drivers: lack of good customer service on buses. • Overcrowding: lack of monitoring overcrowding on buses.

• Reliability: buses not arriving on time, this is perceived to becoming more of an issue and the Golden Mile is regarded as the key bottleneck. There is also perceived to be a lack of monitoring of whether services are running on time. • Ticketing: inconsistency between providers. • Vehicles: advertising covering windows. • Lack of connection with stakeholders: planning is perceived as being undertaken behind closed doors. • Bus stops: lack of seating, lack of visibility (hard for bus to see passengers), Adshels provide poor cover for passengers.

Coverage of the services was discussed in detail. A key issue was perceived to be the lack of transparent criteria for deciding which areas would be serviced by public transport (for instance, whether each area would have weekend services and how frequent the services would be). Participants were seeking transparent planning based on population information to design services. The suburbs currently perceived as lacking a minimum basic service were: Evans Bay, Happy Valley, Breaker Bay, Maupuia, Highbury, South and West Kaori, Aro Street and Strathmore.

The key to freeing up funding for additional services was considered to be reducing the delays through the Golden Mile. Several suggestions for reducing the delays were made, including: reducing the public transport services through the middle of town, banning private cars from the Golden Mile, using public transport shuttle services through the city (with interchanges at either end of the city), off bus ticketing, parallel routes and reducing multiplicity of routes. There was not a consensus within the group as to which solutions would be best.

Reliability of services was considered to be a major issue. The key suggestions participants made for increasing reliability of services were: “go green” triggers for buses approaching traffic lights, accurate timetables, reducing Golden Mile congestion, banning car parking on Rintoul Street, bus stop location and innovation (e.g. stop at every second stop in peak times), electronic/integrated ticketing and no parking at bus ‘choke points’.

Highest priorities: reliable weekend and off-peak services, improved reliability, achievable and predictable bus timetables, and freeing up the Golden Mile.

5.3 Public Consultation Focus Group

About 15 users of public transport attended this group. All participants had made submissions as part of the Wellington Review public consultation. The group included several people who did not have access to a private vehicle.

The key strength of the Wellington public transport service identified by participants was the provision of strong and well established key routes bringing people into the city.

The key weaknesses of the services raised by participants, and the number of participants that were concerned about each issue follows:

• Buses running ‘not in service’ and therefore not being available for use by the public (9). Participants sought access to ‘not in service’ buses, especially where: a bus has broken down,

there are overcrowding issues, and for use in areas where there are few/no services (Aro Valley, Owhiro Bay, Vogeltown).

• Trolley buses coming off their wires (9). Buses often seem to come off the wires at the same places and there is usually a lack of communication from the driver about what is happening. Using a Snapper card, an additional fare can sometimes be incurred.

• Limited hours of service (9). Route 21, Owhiro Bay, Maupuia, Evans Bay, Route 44, Route 9, Route 24, Karori West and South, Route 10, routes to Hataitai and Karori West. Lack of service in these areas during the evenings and weekends was considered an issue, particularly when trying to access sports, use services after dark and/or in poor weather. It was also suggested there was a lack of access to Sunday markets, and to Victoria University in the weekends (Route 18).

• Personal security (9). This was particularly an issue for: Hataitai, Aro Street, Island Bay, Owhiro Bay and Massey University.

• Cross city journeys not well facilitated (9). Better cross city journeys are sought for: Melrose- Kilbirnie, Northland-Karori (supermarket access), Karori-Johnsonville, Owhiro Bay-Kilbirnie- Airport and Newtown-Hataitai. Services are also sought for accessing: Thorndon New World, Moore Wilsons, Pak’n’Save Kilbirnie and the Airport Retail Park.

• Poor communication from drivers (8).

• Places with no service (7). For instance: Owhiro Bay to Kilbirnie, Owhiro Bay through Happy Valley to Brooklyn, Evans Bay on the weekends and Maupuia on the weekends.

• Buses not arriving on schedule (7). For instance: Route 10, Route 43/44, buses from Courtenay Place. Some participants suggested an interchange at either end of the city with shuttle services running through the city.

• Lack of frequency on some services (6). For instance Route 3 and Karori West (5.05 and 5.15 often end up running concurrently, would prefer the 5.15 to run at 4.45).

• Buses not stopping for passengers (6). Often because of congestion at stops, buses queue up and then end up missing people, generally at inner city stops (e.g. James Smiths stop, Willis Street, Kent Terrace, Wellington Hospital, Tamar Street in Island Bay and Hill Street).

• Lack of connections and poorly executed connections (6). For instance lack of connection between the Route 3 and trains, and connections between Route 3W Karori West and Route 18.

• Lack of /poor bus shelters (6). For instance Ngaio (opposite Orari Street on Perth Street), Pembroke Road in Northland, Massey, Karori Park).

• Lack of signage. Lots of stops without timetable information and presence of graffiti. (4) It can be hard to see the bus stop numbers and new timetable information needs to be proactively given to passengers.

• Overcrowding on buses (4). For instance buses going through Hataitai, Northland, Island Bay and Route 3.

• Visibility of bus numbers and displays (3).

Highest priorities: adding services for areas with limited services, improving connections between buses, improving cross city connections, easing congestion on the Golden Mile, using not in service buses, adding a service to Owhiro Bay, longer hours for Aro Street services, improving Route 44, extending services for Route 21 and providing secure and dry bus shelters.

5.4 Disability Focus Group

Twelve representatives of the disabled community attended this workshop.

Participants identified the following as the characteristics of the ideal public transport service for Wellington: consistency across the region, regular services, easy access to high quality information about the services, reliable, accessible, friendly drivers with good attitudes, inclusive, seamless, universally usable and easy to use.

Participants were asked about the strengths of the current public transport offer for Wellington but little emerged from this part of the discussion.

Overall, the key weakness of public transport in Wellington was the lack of provision of a service that was consistently appropriate for people with disabilities. This included consistency in the physical buses, driver behaviour/attitude and roading.

Some buses are regarded as well equipped for people with disabilities, but this is not consistent across the network making some journeys difficult (particularly at off peak times and when using low frequency services). Physical issues with the buses included: narrow isle width, lip on wheelchair ramp, width of place for wheelchair on the bus, belts at wheelchair seats not at appropriate heights or difficult to use, lack of a handle to hold on to at wheelchair seats, difficulty using the Snapper Card when entering the bus at the back door, lack of room on the diesel buses, lack of compliance with leaving designated seats available for passengers who need them.

The drivers’ understanding of, and approach to, working with people with disabilities was identified as a pivotal issue for people with disabilities seeking to use public transport. Participants noted that some drivers do not know how to use special facilities (e.g. the ramp and floor lowering) or do not always offer them when people need them. Participants suggested that buses be modified so that when the front door opens, the bus automatically kneels – this will mean that the bus driver is not in control.

Other issues included drivers stopping too far away from the curb, or not knowing to park next to the raised section of curb, drivers not lifting seats to make way for wheelchairs, drivers giving passengers incorrect information (issue for people with poor vision) and drivers not waiting for people to be seated before driving off.

Participants also identified inconsistencies in the provision of suitable facilities at bus stops (stops on driveways and shelters away from stops). In addition, it is perceived that there are inconsistencies in roading infrastructure with some curbs unable to accommodate the buses with ramps.

Information provision was also raised as an issue by several participants:

• People with poor vision raised issues with: no longer being able to use the Metlink phone service at night, small size of print on timetables on poles at bus stops, lack of a speaker system advising passengers which bus is arriving (at stops) and advising passengers which stop they are arriving at (on buses).

• People with mobility disabilities raised issues with: not knowing which buses/routes will offer wheelchair accessible services, i.e. they could not rely on timetables and information at bus stops being accurate about which services will offer accessible services.

Participants also raised concerns about the reliability of buses. Many said that a number of buses frequently do not run on time.

5.5 Rita Angus Retirement Village Residents

About 12 residents of Rita Angus Retirement Village attended a discussion group about public transport. All of the attendees were current or past users of public transport. Participants spoke about the importance of being able to remain mobile and explained that using public transport was as much about getting out (the journey) as it was the destination. Several participants also said they had lost confidence in their ability to use public transport (because of bad experiences) and that it would be hard for them to start using public transport again.

Most participants commented on difficulty alighting buses and for one participant difficulty getting on and off the bus was the primary reason they had stopped using the bus. The issues participants raised were: buses not coming close enough to the curb, lack of clarity about where to put walkers on the bus, difficulty signalling to the bus driver that they wanted to use the bus at crowded stops, and other passengers not relinquishing the front seats.

Participants reported mixed experiences with bus drivers. Some participants spoke about bus drivers being very friendly and making an effort to assist them. Others spoke about bus drivers starting to drive while they were trying to get to their seat and unwillingness to lower the bus floor.

Nearly all participants were critical of the lack of a sheltered bus stop directly outside the village. Most participants said they would be more likely to use/increase use of the bus if there was a sheltered bus stop outside the village. Participants are seeking a bus stop with a seat and protection from the wind,

20 either right outside or within a close vicinity of Rita Angus. Participants noted that the service to the stop would only need to be occasional.

Highest priority: providing a sheltered bus stop directly outside Rita Angus Retirement Village and improving the attitude of some bus drivers (in particular with regards to a willingness to lower the floor and not starting to drive until passengers are seated).

5.6 Malvina Major Retirement Village Residents

About 70 residents attended a discussion session at the Malvina Major Retirement Village. Most of the participants were current users of public transport.

The small number of participants who were not current users of public transport said the main reason they did not use the services were: they had access to their own car, found it difficult getting on/off buses, had difficulty maintaining balance when drivers started to move the bus before they sat down, and difficulty getting down the steps at the back of the bus.

The participants perceived that the strengths of public transport in Wellington are: the SuperGold Card, direct services, some drivers are friendly, train service is frequent and the Airport Flyer.

The primary weakness of public transport for participants was the distance between the village and a public transport service to the CBD. Residents can use either the Route 46 bus or the train on the Johnsonville Line, but the bus runs only at peak times and the nearest railway station (Raroa) is some distance away.

Residents are seeking increased access to bus services, with the provision of a bus service in off peak times (including weekends) from the village to the CBD. Suggestions for the service included: increasing the number of Route 46 buses, introducing services on small buses, extension of some Khandallah bus services to the village (a few times a day).

Residents and staff are also seeking access to cross suburb services: increasing the frequency of the Broadmeadows Shopper service to Johnsonville; and adding a service from Porirua (primarily for staff).

Other issues included: drivers travelling too quickly up Onslow Road and difficulty getting buses to stop at crowded stops.

Highest priority: the highest priority for most participants was the provision of a regular bus service between the village and CBD (and for some, right through to Wellington Hospital). Highest priorities for other participants were: adding a service between the village and Porirua, adding weekend services, adding a service to Queensgate and making timetables available at the village.

6.0 Conclusions

The provision of high quality public transport was considered to be very important across all stakeholder groups. The strengths of Wellington public transport were generally considered to be the coverage of services, the frequency of services on primary routes and the willingness of people to use public transport.

The key barriers to providing good public transport Services in Wellington were considered to be:

• Roading bottlenecks (Ngauranga to Airport). • Narrow roads. • Congestion on the Golden Mile. • Lack of bus priority infrastructure.

Overall, the main weaknesses of the current public transport services identified in this consultation were:

• Unreliability – services not matching timetabling. • Inconsistency in service quality provided by bus drivers (particularly for people who need their help, e.g. young people, disabled people and unwell people). • Lack of cross city services. • Lack of integration between services. • Provision of limited services to some areas (no off-peak services). • No provision of services to some areas. • Lack of a consistent approach across services in the provision of accessible buses (for people with physical disabilities). • Poor quality shelters. • Short bus stops (particularly problematic when trying to offer access to people with wheel chairs.

The most common suggestions for improvement in Wellington public transport were:

• Reducing congestion on the Golden Mile (either by reducing access to private cars or using an interchange/shuttle service reducing public transport using the Golden Mile). • Reducing congestion up the spine and especially through Newtown. • Adding more bus priority infrastructure. • Realistic timetabling. • Introducing real time information. • Driver training (customer service and providing service to people with disabilities). • Lengthening bus stops. • Adding services in non/poorly serviced areas, such as Aro Valley and the south coast. • Increasing frequency on some routes, such as Route 43/44. • Adding cross city services (including services between the Hospitals, between Newtown and Miramar and between multiple suburbs and Victoria University). • Adding a direct service between the City and the Airport. • Improving the quality of bus shelters (shelter from the wind and improved lighting).

• Making full use of accessible buses (offering these kinds of buses as much as possible) and making it clear which routes have accessible buses. • Allowing the public to use ‘not in service’ buses.

Appendix 1

DISCUSSION GUIDE: Physical sites

WELLINGTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT REVIEW

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Introduction

• Check everyone is okay with the session being recorded. • Check everyone has the same understanding about the time available. • Explain how the information will be used. • Introduce participants, ask everyone to explain their role.

Wellington Review Introduction

• Explain process of undertaking reviews. • Explain stages of review process. • Seek questions about the review.

Your area of responsibility - Status Quo

How well is xxxxxxxxxxxx served by public transport? What works well? What does not work well? How well does it perform on: • Access to public transport from xxxx • Public transport destinations • Direct routes • Journey times • Frequency of services • Departure times • Hours of operation • Days of operation • Connections with other services Do you receive any feedback from your stakeholders (e.g. customers) about public transport, what do they say?

Your area of responsibility moving forward

How would you like the public transport that serves xxxxxx to be improved? • Access to public transport from xxxxx • Public transport destinations • Direct routes • Journey times • Frequency of services • Departure times • Hours of operation

• Days of operation • Connections with other services What matters more? Relative importance of improvements in each of the above. If just one thing was changed about the public transport serving xxxxxx what should it be?

Other

Is there any other feedback you would like to see the review consider?

Thank and Close

Thank participant for their time.

Appendix 2

DISCUSSION GUIDE: Non physical sites

WELLINGTON PUBLIC TRANSPORT REVIEW

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

Introduction

Wellington Review Introduction

• Explain process of undertaking reviews. • Explain stages of review process. • Seek questions about the review.

Big picture

Ask participants to think about the ideal public transport Offer for Wellington, and describe what the offer would be like: What would the key characteristics of the ideal public transport Offer in Wellington be? Which words could be used to describe the offer?

Status Quo

Again, thinking about Wellington... What do you consider to be the strengths of the current public transport Offer for Wellington? What are the weaknesses? What should be changed? How? How well does it perform on: • Public transport origins and destinations • Direct routes • Journey times • Frequency of services • Departure times • Hours of operation • Days of operation • Connections between services If you could change just one thing about Wellington public transport what would it be?

People/organisations you represent - Status Quo

How well are xxxxxxxxxxxx served by public transport?

What works well? What does not work well? How well does it perform on: • Public transport origins and destinations • Direct routes • Journey times • Frequency of services • Departure times • Hours of operation • Days of operation • Connections between services Do you receive any feedback from your stakeholders (e.g. customers) about public transport, what do they say?

Your area of responsibility moving forward

How would you like the public transport that serves xxxxxx to be improved? • Public transport origins and destinations • Direct routes • Journey times • Frequency of services • Departure times • Hours of operation • Days of operation • Connections between services What matters more? Relative importance of improvements in each of the above. If just one thing was changed about the public transport serving xxxxxx what should it be?

Other Is there any other feedback you would like to see the review consider?

Thank and Close Thank participant for their time.