Programme Business Case Report DRAFT Released 21 June 2019
This report and supporting LGWM technical documents are being released in draft on Friday 21st June 2019 for the purposes of public information and to inform LGWM partner decision making processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council, and Greater Wellington City Council, nor has funding approval for any further stages been given. The contents of this draft report may change and do not necessarily represent the final position of LGWM or its partner organisations.
Copyright information This publication is copyright © NZ Transport Agency on behalf of the LGWM partners. Material in it may be reproduced for personal or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this publication and Let’s Get Wellington Moving as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to: Manager, Information NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 The permission to reproduce material in this publication does not extend to any material for which the copyright is identified as being held by a third party. Authorisation to reproduce material belonging to a third party must be obtained from the copyright holder(s) concerned.
Disclaimer The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council have endeavoured to ensure material in this document is technically accurate and reflects legal requirements. However, the document does not override governing legislation. The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council do not accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document. If the user of this document is unsure whether the material is correct, they should refer directly to the relevant legislation and contact the NZ Transport Agency.
More information NZ Transport Agency Published June 2019 If you have further queries, call our contact centre on 0800 699 000 or write to us: NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 This document is available from the NZ Transport Agency on request.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 Content
Foreword ...... i Recommended Programme of Investment ...... ii Cost Estimates ...... iv Programme Outcomes & Next Steps ...... iv
Part A – The Strategic Case...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Purpose ...... 1 1.2. Background and Programme History...... 2 1.3. Programme Partners ...... 4 1.4. LGWM Governance and Management ...... 4 1.5. Programme Stakeholders ...... 5 2. Programme Context ...... 7 2.1. Geographic Context ...... 7 2.2. Land Use and Urban Form ...... 7 2.3. Growth Projections...... 7 2.4. Current Transport System Design ...... 8 2.5. Role of the Transport System ...... 12 2.6. Current Transport System Pressures ...... 12 2.7. National Strategic Context...... 15 2.8. Regional Strategic Context ...... 15 2.9. Local Strategic Context ...... 16 3. Strategic Assessment ...... 18 3.1. Investment Logic ...... 18 3.2. Transport System Causes ...... 19 3.3. Transport System Effects ...... 22 3.4. Transport System Consequences ...... 22 3.5. Transport System Opportunities ...... 23 4. Programme Objectives ...... 26 4.1. Urban Design and Transport Principles ...... 26 4.2. LGWM Investment Objectives ...... 28
Part B – Developing the Programme ...... 29 Overview ...... 29
Part B1 – Strategic Response ...... 31 5. Potential Interventions...... 31 5.1. Intervention Development and Assessment ...... 31
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 Content
6. Test Scenarios ...... 32 6.1. Test Scenario Development (2016) ...... 32 6.2. Test Scenario Assessment ...... 35 6.3. Test Scenarios Conclusion ...... 36 6.4. Community and Stakeholder Workshops (early 2017) ...... 37 7. Developing the Strategic Response ...... 38 8. Scenarios for Engagement ...... 40 8.1. Engagement Scenarios Development ...... 40 8.2. Engagement Scenarios Assessment ...... 41 8.3. Engagement Feedback ...... 44 8.4. LGWM Response to Engagement Scenarios Feedback ...... 44 9. SMART Objective Development ...... 46
Part B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements ...... 47 10. Programme Development Analysis ...... 47 10.1. LGWM as an enabler for urban development ...... 47 10.2. Pricing ...... 48 10.3. Alternative Futures and Technology ...... 49 10.4. Mass Transit ...... 51 10.5. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro ...... 53 10.6. Basin Reserve Area ...... 55 11. Further Analysis ...... 58 11.1. State Highway 1 Corridor ...... 58 11.2. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro ...... 58 11.3. State Highway 1 corridor through Mt Victoria ...... 58
Part B3 – Programme Development ...... 59 12. Longlist Programme Options ...... 59 12.1. Longlist Programme Development ...... 59 12.2. Longlist Programme Options ...... 61 12.3. Longlist Programme Assessment ...... 61 13. Shortlist Programme Options ...... 63 13.1. Shortlist Programme Development and Options...... 63 13.2. Shortlist Programme Assessment ...... 66 14. Recommended Programme ...... 67 14.1. Recommended Programme Development ...... 67 14.2. Recommended Programme of Investment Summary ...... 68 14.3. Recommended Programme Detail ...... 69 14.4. Whole of Network Solution ...... 81
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 Content
14.5. Recommended Programme of Investment Sequencing ...... 82 14.6. Recommended Programme Assessment ...... 86 14.7. Programme Risks and Uncertainties ...... 95
Part C – Preferred Way Forward ...... 97 15. Affordability Contraints ...... 97 16. Indicative Package ...... 98 16.1. Funding and Financing the Indicative Package ...... 100 16.2. Assessment of the Indicative Package ...... 100 16.3. Whole of System Solution ...... 103 16.4. Sequencing, Interdependencies and Trigger Points ...... 103 17. Management Case ...... 105 17.1. Delivery Model ...... 105 17.2. Next Steps for Delivery ...... 105 17.3. Programme Monitoring and Reviews ...... 107 17.4. Programme Funding ...... 109 17.5. Risks and Uncertainties ...... 109 18. Commercial Case ...... 111
APPENDIX A – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
APPENDIX B – INVESTMENT LOGIC MAP
APPENDIX C – INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE KPIS AND RPI ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D – NOTE 1: INTERVENTION LONGLIST SCREEN
APPENDIX E – NOTE 2: SCENARIO LONGLIST DEVELOPMENT
APPENDIX F – LONGLIST SCENARIOS MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS REPORT
APPENDIX G – ENGAGEMENT SCENARIOS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX H – LONGLIST PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP NOTES
APPENDIX I – SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS WORKSHOP NOTES
APPENDIX J – COST REPORT
APPENDIX K – ECONOMICS REPORT
APPENDIX L – INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX M – MONITORING PLAN
APPENDIX N – TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 Foreword
FOREWORD Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and the NZ Transport Agency have worked together to deliver a transformational city-shaping programme for Wellington that supports the community’s aspirations for how Wellington City will look, feel and function. It does this by providing a holistic transport system that enables and supports future growth and builds upon Wellington’s unique character as one of the world’s great cities. The resultant Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI), outlined in this Programme Business Case, aims to improve the way people get around, while enhancing liveability and access, reducing reliance on private vehicles, and improving safety and resilience. The focus of the RPI is on the area from Ngauranga Gorge to the airport, including the Wellington Urban Motorway and connections to the central city, hospital, and the eastern and southern suburbs. This focus area should be seen in the context of the wider Wellington regional transport system, as many of the journeys in the central city start and finish outside the focus area. The RPI and this associated Programme Business Case has been developed with a strong focus on people and the desire to enable an improved quality of life. As such, significant public and stakeholder engagement was undertaken to inform the place-making approach, which has been used to integrate the transport outcomes with the land use and urban development outcomes of the RPI. In doing so, the RPI can act as a catalyst for quality and sustainable urban renewal and growth. While recognised as one of the world’s most liveable cities, Wellington’s transport system is starting to constrain the city and region’s liveability, economic growth and productivity. The Programme Business Case clearly outlines how we started with the kind of city and region our community wants and defined a transport system and associated investment needed to enable that:
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 i
Foreword
The overall strategic approach used to establish the RPI and respond to the investment and programme objectives were as follows:
STRATEGIC APPROACH
Make the most of what we have Optimise the transport system and make it safer Encourage people to walk, cycle, and use public transport more, and use cars less Deliver a step change in public transport Substantially improve public transport capacity, quality and performance Encourage urban intensification near public transport Improve journeys to, from and in the central city Prioritise people walking, cycling, and using public transport on key corridors Improve accessibility and amenity of places and streets Ensure goods and services journeys are reliable Improve journeys through and around the central city Reduce conflicts between different transport users and traffic flows Increase the resilience and reliability of our transport corridors, especially to the hospital, port, and airport
Recommended Programme of Investment The Recommended Programme of Investment establishes the proposed long-term vision and aspiration for Wellington’s transport system and urban transformation. While aspirational, this Programme Business Case confirms the benefits envisaged based on the level of analysis appropriate to this stage of the process. It recognises that the investment required is significant and that further investigation into the funding and financing strategy is required. Importantly the RPI is a series of integrated interventions and investments that create a whole system transformation. As such, caution needs to be applied if certain elements are considered in isolation i.e. the RPI is a kit of parts not a shopping list. The transformational, multifaceted RPI achieves the following: High-quality walking and cycling so our streets are safer and better places for people: . Safer speeds in and around the city . Walking improvements though the central city including: o Footpath widening o Improved crossing facilities and reduced waiting times o Better shelters, signage, lighting . New dedicated walking access through Mt Victoria . Public space improvements, for example, Dixon, Mercer, through Te Aro, Artist’s impression: Lambton Quay Basin Reserve . A network of connected cycleways through the central city . New dedicated cycleways connecting through Mt Victoria, along Adelaide Rd, and Vivian St . New pedestrian crossings, including Cobham Drive tist’s impression: Lambton Quay
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 ii
Foreword
Better public transport with high-capacity mass transit so people have more travel choices, and buses and trains are more reliable and attractive: . High-capacity mass transit from the railway station to the airport via a new waterfront spine, Taranaki Street, the hospital, Newtown, Kilbirnie, and Miramar . Bus priority improvements: o Golden Mile spine, with possible general traffic removal on Willis and parts of Lambton and Artist’s impression: Taranaki Street Courtenay o Core routes into the city such as Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road . High quality, high frequency buses . Increased rail network capacity (Implemented outside of LGWM) . Integrated ticketing (Implemented outside of LGWM) Urban development land use changes integrated with transport so people have better travel options where they live and work: . Inform district plan changes . Other tools to increase housing . Building where the market can’t deliver . Capturing increases in land value to support infrastructure investment Smarter transport network with road pricing so people and goods make better use of our transport system without more cars: . Smarter pricing (e.g. parking/cordon charges) . Mobility as a Service for Wellington . Network optimisation, safety and Artist’s impression: Corner of Willis & Mercer Streets operations improvements . Enhanced Travel Demand Management (TDM) . Integrated network operating system . Align parking policy and management with the programme Multimodal State Highway improvements to relocate cars out of the central city and enable better public transport, walking and cycling, and so people can get to key destinations, such as the hospital and airport, more reliably: . Basin Reserve improvements . Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel and widening Ruahine St/Wellington Rd . Reconfiguring SH1 into a tunnel under a new city park in Te Aro . Extra Terrace Tunnel . SH1 Southbound widening between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay Artist’s impression: Basin Reserve Northern Entrance
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 iii
Foreword
Cost Estimates A rough order of costs has been developed for the elements of the RPI as shown in the table below. These estimates should be considered indicative based on 2018 uninflated figures and are inclusive of management costs, construction costs and professional fees. Contingency has been qualitatively assessed and applied to the base estimates. Funding risk has not been applied at this stage.
Recommended Programme of Investment Cost Assessment
RPI ELEMENT ESTIMATED COST $M (2018 UNINFLATED)
Walkable City 70*
Connected Cycleways 30
Public Transport to the north and to/through the city ** 300
Mass Transit – City to Newtown*** 990
Mass Transit – Newtown to Airport*** 450 Smarter Transport Network 30 Smarter Pricing 30
Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel – Duplicate Ruahine St. / Wellington Rd. 480 Basin Reserve Improvements 130 Extra Terrace Tunnel and 4th lane Southbound 400 Te Aro Tunnel and Park 1,100 TOTAL 4,010 * Cost reflects an allocation to undertake early improvements and commence an ongoing programme of larger scale public space improvements ** Excludes rail improvements (funded currently outside of LGWM) *** Cost estimates based on a Light Rail Transit style for Mass Transit
Programme Outcomes & Next Steps The RPI assessment confirms that it will deliver strongly against the investment objectives. In particular, the RPI will enable and support future growth by enhancing Wellington’s liveability and transport accessibility, safety and adaptability. The economic assessment in this business case quantifies several billion dollars of benefit in realising these outcomes, but at a correspondingly high cost. The latter presents a challenge to LGWM partners, and therefore an Indicative Package has been identified by the government as a more affordable way forward that performs well against the investment objectives. This Programme Business Case therefore recommends proceeding with detailed investigation of the Indicative Package and the RPI to ensure LGWM delivers and realises the identified outcomes and vision.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 iv
PART A – The Strategic Case
PART A – THE STRATEGIC CASE 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) is an alliance between Wellington City Council (WCC), Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC), and the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency). LGWM seeks to deliver an integrated transport system that supports the community’s aspirations for how Wellington City will look, feel and function.
Figure 1 LGWM regional and national location (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)
This Programme Business Case summarises LGWM’s integrated transport planning process between 2015 and 2018. The purpose of the programme business case is to enable decisions on the best way forward for investing in the central Wellington transport system over the long term. Supporting documents containing more details about the development of the programme are published on the LGWM website. In developing this Programme Business Case, LGWM has followed the Transport Agency’s business case guidelines. LGWM has had a strong focus on public and stakeholder engagement, and the need for close integration with land use planning.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 1
PART A – The Strategic Case
1.2. Background and Programme History The 2007 Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study identified the following emerging issues facing the Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor (see map of the corridor at Figure 2): Increasing travel demand as a result of increasing population and predicted increases in vehicle usage in the Wellington Region, in particular with respect to the Wellington CBD and associated major regional facilities (such as the airport and port), will put pressure on the existing transport network and services, parts of which are already at, or very close to capacity at peak times. The key ‘high-level’ challenges identified in the 2007 study were: . Accommodating an overall increase in transport demand . Accommodating an increasing number of commuter trips to the CBD . Increasing the level of ‘penetration’ of passenger transport into the CBD to facilitate/encourage a change in transport mode choices . Providing relief to existing (and future) ‘choke points’ . Accommodating an increasing number of trips to/from the port and airport as passenger and freight movements increase . Enhanced opportunities to cater for active modes of transport such as walking and cycling . The need to integrate urban form considerations into transport planning. The 2008 Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Plan was developed to respond to these issues. It defined a number of packages for improvements to the transport network within the corridor. A key element of the plan was design and construction of major highway improvements at the Basin Reserve to improve passenger transport, walking and cycling by separating north-south flows from east-west traffic. The Transport Agency developed a Basin Bridge proposal to deliver this element of the plan but, when this was considered by a Board of Inquiry in July 2014, resource consent was declined. In August 2015 the High Court issued a ruling dismissing the Transport Agency’s appeal of the Board of Inquiry decision. Following the Basin Bridge decision, a partnership (LGWM) was established between WCC, GWRC and the Transport Agency to develop an integrated and multi-modal improvement programme for the whole Ngauranga to Airport corridor, to respond to Wellington’s long-term transport needs. This Programme Business Case summarises the business case for investing in the improvement programme LGWM has developed.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 2
PART A – The Strategic Case
Figure 2 LGWM Ngauranga to Airport corridor map (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 3
PART A – The Strategic Case
1.3. Programme Partners This programme development project has been undertaken collaboratively by the partners, WCC, GWRC, and the Transport Agency as outlined in Table 1 and described in more detail in the following subchapters.
PARTNERS KNOWLEDGE AREAS / RESPONSIBILITIES
Wellington City Council (WCC) Planning land use and managing urban growth
Provision and operation of walking network, cycling network, and local road network
Greater Wellington Regional Council Strategic transport planning for the region
(GWRC) Provision of public transport services (buses and passenger rail)
Civil defence emergency management
New Zealand Transport Agency Investor in land transport system through allocating the National Land Transport Fund (the Transport Agency) Provision and operation of the State Highway network
Regulator of access to and use of the land transport system
Table 1 Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Partners
1.3.1. Wellington City Council WCC is the local authority responsible for Wellington City. The geographic scope of LGWM is within the Wellington City territorial boundary. As a territorial local authority, Wellington City Council is responsible for planning land use, managing urban growth, and the provision and operation of the walking network, cycling network, and local road network within Wellington City.
1.3.2. Greater Wellington Regional Council GWRC is the organisation primarily responsible for overall regional transport planning and civil emergency management. GWRC is also responsible for managing public transport services across the Wellington region, including arranging funding and contracts for service delivery.
1.3.3. New Zealand Transport Agency The Transport Agency is the crown entity responsible for planning and investing in the land transport system. It also manages the State Highway network and provides access to, and use of, the land transport system (for example, through licensing drivers and vehicles, and collecting road user charges).
1.4. LGWM Governance and Management LGWM has been established as a partnership with governance arrangements as set out in Table 2. The programme team has been led by an independent programme director (Barry Mein) and the team members drawn from the member organisations. The programme team has commissioned technical support work undertaken by a range of consultants.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 4
PART A – The Strategic Case
OVERNANCE ROUP TRATEGIC DECISION MAKING AND OVERSIGHT G G (S )
Raewyn Bleakley (NZ Transport Agency) Mayor Wayne Guppy (UHCC)
Councillor Chris Calvi-Freeman (WCC) Councillor Chris Laidlaw (GWRC)
Councillor Barbara Donaldson (GWRC) Mayor Justin Lester (WCC)
Fergus Gammie (NZ Transport Agency)
ALLIANCE BOARD (SUPERVISE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LGWM PROGRAMME)
Pete Clark (NZ Transport Agency) Kevin Lavery (WCC)
Greg Campbell (GWRC)
PROGRAMME DIRECTOR
Barry Mein (Independent)
Table 2 LGWM Governance (as at November 2018)
1.5. Programme Stakeholders LGWM has met and interacted with representatives at stakeholder briefings, workshops, and one-on- one meetings of the organisations set out in Table 3 below.
Table 3 LGWM Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder Stakeholder Description Description Group Group Automobile Association Membership organisation representing National police force response for (Wellington District people with motoring interests in the NZ Police enforcing criminal law, enhancing public Council) Wellington Region safety, and keeping the peace Independent, voluntary organisation of Association of health professionals Architectural Centre OraTaiao architects, artists, designers and others concerned about climate change Intermodal freight hub, linking road, rail, Group of Wellington retail and hospitality Centreport domestic and international shipping Our CBD stakeholders with an interest in the city services CBD Telecommunications infrastructure Porirua Chamber of Chorus Community of business people in Porirua company Commerce Coalition of many groups aiming to Congestion Free promote a more liveable Wellington city, Owner and operator of Wellington's gas PowerCo Wellington responsive to climate change, by distribution network reducing reliance on the private car Cycling advocacy group that aims to get Retail trading associating representing over Cycle Aware Wellington more people on bikes, more often, in Retail NZ 65% of NZ's retail turnover Wellington National voice for people on bicycles in Road Transport National association representing the Cycle Action Network NZ Forum commercial road freight industry Wellington's harbour ferry service A group advocating against building a East by West Ferries running up to 16 return harbour Save the Basin flyover at the Basin Reserve and for better crossings daily region-wide transport solutions
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 5
PART A – The Strategic Case
STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION GROUP GROUP Fair Intelligent Group of professionals advocating for all- Taxi Federation National body for taxi companies Transport electric light rail in Wellington Group advocating for the introduction of Retail consultants, planners, and First Retail Group TramsAction tram-train in Wellington to extend the strategists current rail system Youth-led environmental advocacy Generation Zero organisation that focuses on climate Vodafone Telecommunications company change Advisory committee providing the Council Group of Miramar residents that WCC Accessibility Hack Miramar with feedback and advice from the view of organises technology events Advisory Group people living with impairment Forum for advice to Council during the Hutt Valley Chamber of Society of business people based in the WCC Environmental developmental stages of urban design and Commerce Hutt Valley Reference Group transport projects Group of residents, organisations, and Advisory committee to the Council on Inner City Association property owners in Wellington's inner WCC Youth Council issues that affect the city's youth city Kapiti Coast Chamber Wellington Chamber Group encouraging regional development Collective voice for business in Kapiti of Commerce of Commerce and representing the region's businesses State-owned enterprise responsible for KiwiRail NZ's rail network and the Interislander Wellington Cable Car The operator of Wellington's cable cars ferries National trade association for companies Organisation working to help make Heavy Haulage Wellington Civic that transport overweight or Wellington the best of all possible places to Association Trust overdimension loads live and work Living Streets Aotearoa Organisation for people on foot, Wellington Provider of Wellington taxi services (Wellington) promoting walking-friendly communities Combined Taxis An international association concerned Distributor of electricity to about 166,000 Light Rail Transit Wellington with better public transport through light homes and business in the Wellington Association (NZ) Electricity rail and other systems region Provider of free paramedic care to the Provider of urban and chartered Wellington Free Mana Coach Services people of Greater Wellington and the passenger transport Ambulance Wairarapa National industry organisation Motor Trade Wellington Property Collective voice for the commercial representing over 4000 automotive Association Council property industry in Wellington businesses around NZ Community group advocating for Wellington Regional Mt Cook Mobilised Wellington's regional hospital in Newtown residents of Mt Cook Hospital (CCDHB) Ahu Whenua Trust administering Maori Mt Victoria Residents Community group advocating for Mt Wellington Tenths reserve lands in urban Wellington, Kaitoke Association Victoria residents Trust and Upper Hutt Community group advocating for the Manager of drinking water, stormwater, Mt Victoria Historical protection and preservation of natural Wellington Water and wastewater services in the Wellington Society and built heritage in Mt Victoria region Wellington Mana whenua and Kaitiaki of the Owner and operator of Wellington's Ngāti Toa Rangātira International Airport Wellington region along with other iwi international airport in Rongotai Limited Provider of urban passenger transport Regional economic development agency NZ Bus WREDA services in Wellington for the lower North Island NZ Couriers Nationwide courier service
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 6
PART A – Programme Context
2. PROGRAMME CONTEXT 2.1. Geographic Context The scope of LGWM is to identify improvements to the transport system and associated urban development opportunities in the focus area shown in Figure 2 (Section 0). This focus area should be seen in the context of the wider Wellington regional transport system, as many of the journeys in the central city start and finish outside the focus area. Wellington’s transport system enables movement of people, goods and services. It is multi-modal in nature, encompassing walking, cycling, public transport (buses, taxis, trains, ferries, cable cars, ride- sharing), rail freight, and motor vehicles. The transport system also includes other elements such as network management, information services, and parking provision.
2.2. Land Use and Urban Form Land use, urban form and the economy are the primary drivers of demand for transport services in the Greater Wellington region as a whole and in the central city area in particular. In recent decades, major cities – such as Auckland, Sydney and Melbourne – have dominated economic and population growth in Australasia, attracting ever greater shares of skills, business and investment. Smaller cities have had to find ways to stand out and position themselves. What a city can offer, in terms of quality of life and quality of jobs, is driving the decisions of mobile, skilled populations about where they want to live. Wellington has a world-class quality of life, a physical environment of outstanding beauty, a highly skilled population, high incomes, healthy communities, and a reputation for creativity and quality events. This is reflected in its reputation as a liveable city1. However, there is a need for Wellington to constantly improve itself to continue competing internationally. To do this, the Wellington of the future will need to be: . A resilient city and region capable of supporting intensified land uses . A growing and dynamic Wellington with world-class, inclusive place-making . Well-designed walkable neighbourhoods connected by a smart transport system . An attractive and compact city that’s more sustainable, accessible and safe . A city which attracts high value jobs and opportunities. The right transport decisions and investments are fundamental to supporting this future vision for Wellington. This will benefit the central city, the Wellington region, and the nation.
2.3. Growth Projections The population of the Wellington Region currently stands at around 510,000 people. Under medium projections the population is forecast to grow by 15% over the next 30 years, equating to 75,000 extra residents. The distribution of this growth is estimated to be as follows: . 30% will be focused around Wellington’s central city and inner suburbs . 20% will occur in Wellington City’s northern suburbs
1 2018 Deutsche Bank named Wellington City as the most liveable city out of 50 global cities
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 7
PART A – Programme Context
. 13% will occur in other areas of Wellington City . The remainder (37%) will be around urban centres outside Wellington City, relatively evenly split across the Kapiti Coast, Porirua, Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt, with a lesser proportion in the Wairarapa. Over 40% of the current 235,000 jobs in the Wellington region are located in the central city. The high concentration of employment in the central city attracts commuters from the wider Wellington region. The employment projections show regional employment growing by between 15% and 20% over the next 30 years. The employment projections suggest that between 55% and 60% of future growth in employment is likely to be focused in the central city, potentially increasing the number of jobs there from the current 99,000 to between 114,000 and 131,000 over the next 30 years.
2.4. Current Transport System Design 2.4.1. Transport Corridors from the North North of the central city, State Highway 1 and Hutt Road run parallel to the main rail lines (the North Island Main Trunk, the Johnsonville Line, and the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa Lines), with the primary bus routes running along Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay.
Figure 3 Transport corridors to the north of Wellington Central City (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 8
PART A – Programme Context
2.4.2. Access to the Central City from the North
Public Transport Access The railway lines terminate at the Wellington Railway Station, located at the northern end of the CBD. There are rail sidings to the north of the station and there is access for rail freight to CentrePort from Waterloo Quay at-grade. Rail passengers arriving at Wellington station, wishing to proceed southwards through the CBD, must do so on foot, by bike, or by bus using the waterfront route (Waterloo and Customhouse Quays), or along Featherston Street, Victoria Street, Willis Street, Lambton Quay and the Terrace.
Figure 4 Public Transport on the ‘Golden Mile’ within the central city (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency) Most of the suburban bus services from the north and west run along Lambton Quay and Willis Street (the Golden Mile shown in Figure 4), providing a convenient connection through the heart of the city. The Cable Car terminal is also located on Lambton Quay. Taxi services operate from taxi ranks throughout the central city.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 9
PART A – Programme Context
Motor Vehicle Access Motor vehicles from the north enter the central city (or traverse it) by travelling along three routes – State Highway 1, Hutt Road/Thorndon Quay and the Aotea Quay/Waterfront route. Road access to CentrePort and the Cook Strait ferry terminals is from Aotea Quay. State Highway 1 is a motorway until it enters the Terrace Tunnel, after which it traverses the local city street network and connects to Mt Victoria Tunnel via a one-way system through Te Aro, comprising: . Vivian Street/Kent Terrace to Basin Reserve eastbound . Basin Reserve via the Arras Tunnel and along Karo Drive westbound
Figure 5 General traffic routes within the central city (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency) While State Highway 1 provides a through route for vehicles passing through the central city and towards the airport and hospital, the Vivian Street/Karo Drive one-way system also acts as a distributor for the majority of vehicles (70%-75%) that use State Highway 1 to access the central city or southern and eastern suburbs. Local routes that connect this part of State Highway 1 to the CBD include Willis Street, Victoria Street, Taranaki Street, and the Cambridge/Kent Terraces. The principal connections to the western suburbs are via Bowen/Glenmore Street, Salamanca Road and Aro Street.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 10
PART A – Programme Context
2.4.3. Access to the Central City from the South and East The main access from the eastern suburbs and the airport is via the two-lane State Highway 1 Mt Victoria road tunnel, Constable Street in Newtown, and the single lane Hataitai bus tunnel. Oriental Parade and Evans Bay Parade provide an alternative waterfront route following the harbour’s edge “Round the Bays” at the foot of Mt Victoria. This is also one of Wellington’s main cycle routes.
Figure 6 Transport corridors to the south and east of Wellington City (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency) The main connections from the Hospital and Newtown to the CBD are along Adelaide Road/Kent and Cambridge Terraces, Taranaki Street, Willis Street and Victoria Street. Bus services from the southern suburbs use these routes, together with general traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. These routes intersect at grade with State Highway 1 as they pass through Te Aro, both at the Basin Reserve and Karo Drive/Vivian Street. Other key transport services include harbour ferries, which connect the waterfront, Seatoun and Eastbourne.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 11
PART A – Programme Context
2.4.4. Network Operating Systems State Highway 1 is operated by the Transport Agency traffic operations centre at Johnsonville. Other traffic signals within the city are managed from the traffic operations room at WCC. Rail services are operated from the Wellington Railway station by Kiwirail and Transdev. Buses are managed by the operators, generally under contract to GWRC.
2.5. Role of the Transport System In the past, the development of tramways, passenger rail and bus services and, later, private motoring allowed the city to develop in certain ways. This gave people the opportunity to live in suburbs away from the central city, whilst still allowing them to access high value employment opportunities in the CBD. However, in recent years there has been a strong trend for people to move back to living within the central city, and this has led to more people enjoying the health benefits of walking and cycling to work, and so avoiding the need to travel by motorised transport along increasingly congested commuter routes. The transport system has a key role to play in facilitating further growth in Wellington, in particular supporting further intensification of the central city and the high quality of life it has to offer. Enabling more people to live and move around the central city is desirable economically as it supports an increasingly productive economy by matching innovative businesses with a highly skilled labour pool. Good job opportunities and a high quality of life tend to attract talented people to the city. Intensification in the central city and around public transport hubs is also desirable as it reduces the environmental impacts of travel to and from the central city. 2.6. Current Transport System Pressures In recent years, most of the growth in travel demand to, from and within the central city has been accommodated by people choosing more sustainable ways to travel, by walking, cycling and using rail and bus services. Private vehicle activity within the central city has been held in check by constrained road corridor capacity, traffic congestion on the approaches to the central city, and the relatively high cost of commuter car parking within the central city itself. At peak times, parts of the central city network and routes to the central city operate at capacity for general traffic. Buses are caught up in the traffic congestion so that service efficiency and reliability are severely compromised. Traffic impacts negatively on amenity within the central city, and on the safety and convenience of those moving around on foot and on bikes. The passenger rail services are not caught up in traffic congestion because trains operate on their own dedicated corridors. However, because the trains terminate at Wellington Station at the northern end of the CBD, journeys to destinations further south can involve a lengthy walk or transferring to bus services that stop frequently as they pass through the central city. This means that car travel often provides the quickest journey through the central city to destinations to the south and east of the CBD, despite the congestion of the road network during peak travel times. Transport routes to access the central city and key regional destinations are limited in number and constrained by the geography of the harbour and hills. The compact urban form resulting from this challenging topography has helped to encourage relatively high use of public transport, walking, and cycling as modes of travel. However, the reliance on a small number of corridors creates issues for accessibility and resilience.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 12
PART A – Programme Context
Overall, the system provides little ‘slack’ for unplanned events such as vehicle crashes, rail service outages, and severe weather. The system is particularly vulnerable to seismic events, with several fault lines in the area.
Figure 7 2016 and forecast 2036 Population (pink) and Employment (blue) in the Wellington Region (WCC)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 13
PART A – Programme Context
Figure 8 Hazard risks to the transport system, blue and yellow areas represent evacuation zones (WCC)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 14
PART A – Programme Context
2.7. National Strategic Context LGWM has had regard to a number of national strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment. The key national document is summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment outlined in Appendix A. 2.7.1. Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (2018) The Government Policy Statement (GPS) 2018 sets out the Government’s priorities for the land transport sector, including the outcomes the government expects through investment of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). The GPS identifies safety and access as key priorities, supported by the priorities of the environment and value for money. The GPS strategic objectives are to provide a land transport system that: . Is a safe system, free of death and serious injury . Provides increased access to economic and social opportunities . Enables transport choice and access . Is resilient . Reduces greenhouse gas emissions, as well as adverse effects on the local environment and public health . Delivers the right infrastructure and services to the right level at the best cost. Themes have also been included in the GPS to assist understanding of how to effectively deliver on the priorities. The themes influence how the results should be delivered to ensure the best transport solutions for New Zealand are achieved. The themes for GPS 2018 are: . A mode-neutral approach to transport planning and investment decisions . Incorporating technology and innovation into the design and delivery of land transport investment . Integrating land use and transport planning and delivery.
2.8. Regional Strategic Context LGWM has had regard to a number of regional strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment. The key regional documents are summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment outlined in Appendix A. 2.8.1. Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is a statutory document prepared under the Land Transport Management Act that provides the agreed strategic direction for development of the region’s land transport network. The 2015 Wellington RLTP identifies four key transport problem statements for the region: . Transport inefficiencies lead to suppressed regional economic growth and productivity . Transport infrastructure deficiencies and poor user behaviour leads to a sub-optimal regional road safety performance . Regional infrastructure that is vulnerable to disruption by unplanned events is potentially resulting in an unacceptable cost of severance and restricted ability to recover over time . Poor delivery of transport and land use can result in a deteriorating living environment and reduced transport choices for the region’s population.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 15
PART A – Programme Context
The RLTP identifies eight strategic objectives in response to the above problems: . A high quality, reliable public transport network . A reliable and effective strategic road network . An effective network for the movement of freight . A safe system for all users of the regional transport network . An increasingly resilient transport network . A well planned, connected and integrated transport network . An attractive and safe walking and cycling network . An efficient and optimised transport system that minimises the impact on the environment. The overall strategic approach in the RLTP recognises that the transport system has different roles and uses at different times of the day and week, and that there are often trade-offs between transport objectives. The goal is to have more people using public transport, walking, and cycling as modes of travel - particularly at peak times when the transport network is in high demand. The strategy however recognises that public transport, walking or cycling will not be feasible for every trip. Multi-modal solutions are needed to effectively support the region’s economic growth and liveability. 2.8.2. Ngauranga to Airport Strategy The 2015 RLTP includes a Ngauranga to Airport Strategy chapter, which identifies the key problems, benefits, and strategic responses specific to the LGWM focus area. This is under review as part of LGWM, but currently promotes a multi-modal approach with four strategic principles:
. A high quality and high frequency passenger transport ‘spine’ . A reliable and accessible ‘ring’ or bypass route for vehicles . Inter-connected, safe, and convenient local street, walking, cycling and passenger transport networks . Highly accessible and attractive ‘activity’ or shopping streets.
2.9. Local Strategic Context LGWM has had regard to a number of local strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment. The key local documents are summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment outlined in Appendix A. 2.9.1. Wellington Urban Growth Plan: Urban Development and Transport Strategy 2014-43 Adopted in 2015, the plan is the Wellington City Council’s growth management strategy. The plan seeks to deliver four key outcomes: a compact city, a liveable city, a city set in nature, and a resilient city. The plan integrates land use and transport planning, complemented by environmental and resilience considerations. It focuses intensification in the central city and in areas with good access to public transport and local services; this has significant impacts on transport planning through or around the central city. Improvements to cycling, walking and public transport are integral to the strategy. More recently, a document titled “Future City Vision: A Great Harbour City” has been developed simultaneously with LGWM2. It explores the potential for the transport system to support Wellington
2 The document is independent advice commissioned by WCC to inform growth planning; it is not a formally adopted document.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 16
PART A – Programme Context
City’s future vision and urban development goal. The document highlights the role of LGWM as a catalyst for urban renewal and growth, enhancing the capital city as a place to live, work and invest. The city plans to accommodate its population and economic growth through a mix of intensification in existing urban areas, which have good transport links, infrastructure and community facilities, and limited urban expansion into greenfield areas. The main projected growth areas identified in the 2015 Wellington Urban Growth Plan are: . The central city: around 20,000 more residents are expected to be accommodated in Te Aro, Wellington Central, Pipitea and Thorndon by 2043 . The Adelaide Road corridor, Newtown and the sub-regional centres (Johnsonville and Kilbirnie): over 11,000 more people are expected to accommodate in these areas by 2043 . New urban areas north of the city: over 11,000 new residents are expected in Lincolnshire Farm, Woodridge, Churton Park and Stebbings Valley by 2043 (part of northern suburbs). The forecasts reflect the significant potential for accommodating additional growth within the central city and surrounding areas. This would reduce the need for people to travel longer distances for work and leisure purposes, and make for a more compact, vibrant and environmentally responsible city. 2.9.2. Towards 2040: Smart Capital Adopted in 2011, Towards 2040 aims to “position Wellington as an internationally competitive city with a strong and diverse economy, a high quality of life and healthy communities.” The vision has four goals: People-centred city, Connected city, Eco-city, Dynamic central city. The document envisages that “Wellington's people-centred city will be healthy, vibrant, affordable and resilient, with a strong sense of identity and 'place'. This will be expressed through urban form, openness and accessibility for its current and future populations.” The Dynamic central city goal imagines that the central city will be a vibrant and creative place offering the lifestyle, entertainment and amenities of a much bigger city, and that the central city will continue to drive the regional economy. 2.9.3. Central City Framework The Central City Framework was adopted in 2011 and is a supporting document to Towards 2040. The Framework contains a series of projects related to street structure, landscape and built form, which seeks to influence the future shape of the central city. 2.9.4. Wellington City District Plan – Central Area The central area chapter of the District Plan (last amended October 2013) describes the desired future for the central city. The District Plan sets a vision for a vibrant, prosperous, liveable city with a Central Area comprising a commercial core with a mix of related activities. The plan’s central area provisions are based on a list of principles that will guide future development.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 17
PART A – Strategic Assessment
3. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 3.1. Investment Logic An investment logic map was originally developed by LGWM in August 2016. The investment logic map was subsequently reviewed in December 2017 to reflect insights and public engagement carried out in October and November 2017. This updated investment logic is shown in Appendix B. Further work carried out in late 2017 and in 2018 analysed the problem definition in the headings of causes, effects and consequences as summarised in Table 4.
3 PROBLEMS - CAUSES PROBLEMS - EFFECTS
Growing demand for travel to, from, through and within the central city Poor and declining levels of service
Transport modes competing for limited space on Increasing congestion and unreliable journey times constrained corridors Vulnerability to disruption from unplanned events
Cross-directional movements creating conflicts Safety issues especially for active modes between movements and modes
PROBLEMS - CONSEQUENCES OPPORTUNITIES
Reduced amenity (e.g. noise, pollution, and severance) for people living, visiting and working in Enhance travel choice for access to, from, within the central city and through the central city
Lack of transport system capacity, particularly on rail Make city streets more attractive and safer places and bus services, constraining Wellington’s growth to be
Slower and less predictable travel time for journeys Shape urban growth and activate urban to, from, within and through the central city regeneration
Increase in disrupted journeys for people and freight Support increased productivity and slower recovery Improve community health and wellbeing
Deaths and serious injuries, especially for Support enhanced environmental outcomes pedestrians and cyclists
Table 4 LGWM Case for Change: problems and opportunities The following sections present a brief overview of the causes, effects and consequences associated with the problems and opportunities identified by LGWM, with supporting evidence. A comprehensive evidence base is available in the ‘Case for Change’ and ‘Data Report’ documents.
3 Subsequent to the problems being finalised as part of the LGWM Progress Report, LGWM has an increased focus on urban development and land use that is not fully captured within the problem causes and effects as presented.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 18
PART A – Strategic Assessment
3.2. Transport System Causes Wellington’s transport system is coming under pressure from economic growth, population growth and changing land use patterns as shown in Figure 11. Intensification of both residential and commercial land use in the central city, and an increase in the number of visitors, is leading to a growth in short journeys and demand for a safe and convenient central city street network with a high level of amenity. The growth in the number of jobs in the central city is also leading to an increase in the number of longer distance commuters who need to travel into the central city at peak times, especially from the north where new housing development is taking place. Meanwhile the Wellington region as a whole is growing, and this is driving demand for journeys to the central city and port, and through the central city to reach important destinations such as the airport and hospital. This latter demand results in increased car travel through the central city as the public transport system’s design is mainly focused on moving people into and out of the CBD. These significant movements conflict with the increasing number of buses, pedestrian and cyclists accessing the central city and moving around within it (as shown in Figure 9), adversely affecting the amenity of the central city. Many through journeys use the same routes as commuter journeys (e.g. Vivian Street and the waterfront quays). In the absence of further improvements to the transport system capacity, the system will struggle to accommodate growth because:
Growth in walking and cycling will not be supported by the current infrastructure which is already crowded along key pedestrian routes and lacks a network of safe cycle routes Growth in public transport demand will soon outstrip capacity (as shown in Figure 12). For example, it is estimated that the capacity of the train services to the north will be exceeded by demand within five years without investment. Constrained bus capacity within the CBD is already affecting reliability and it is estimated that demand will exceed supply within the next decade. If left unchecked, lack of public transport capacity will result in reduced job growth in the central city and some people going back to commuting by cars Growth in vehicular traffic within the LGWM focus area cannot be accommodated by State Highway 1 in its current form, as some sections of State Highway 1 are already at capacity at peak times. The few alternative routes to State Highway 1, such as the waterfront quays, have limited additional capacity and pass through sensitive urban environments.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 19
PART A – Strategic Assessment
Figure 9 Cross-movements in Te Aro – morning peak
Figure 10 Travel time variability for some journeys
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 20
PART A – Strategic Assessment
Figure 11 Number of people entering the central city during the 2016 morning peak (left) and programme forecast 2036 (right)
Figure 12 Public transport capacity and forecast demand
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 21
PART A – Strategic Assessment
3.3. Transport System Effects Without remedial action, the net result will be that levels of service will progressively deteriorate for all modes of transport, resulting in unpredictable journey times (as shown in Figure 10). There will also be environmental issues, less safe cycling conditions and walking becoming a less attractive option. This will create the potential for increased safety risks at conflict points (as shown in Figure 13) and intensify the impact of unplanned events on the transport system. The limited ability of the transport system to accommodate growth will undermine the future success of Wellington City and the wider region. The relatively low number of corridors that provide access to and within Wellington City, combined with the potential for natural hazards like earthquakes and storms, and increasing risks resulting from climate change, mean that hazard events have the potential to disrupt access to the CBD and surrounding communities. It could take a long time to recover some of these connections as was illustrated by the recent prolonged closure of State Highway 1 near Kaikoura.
Figure 13 Heatmap of fatal and serious injury crashes 2000-2017 (WCC, NZ Transport Agency) 3.4. Transport System Consequences In the absence of investment to address the above problems (both causes and effects) the following consequences are expected: . There will be an increase in crowding on rail and bus services, and the road network will become increasingly congested. The transport system will be unable to support even the ‘do minimum’ growth scenario. This will affect housing affordability and people’s choices of where to live and work
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 22
PART A – Strategic Assessment
. Travel time variability will increase for all modes of transport. This will impact negatively on the reliability of the system to get people to their destinations on time, leading to losses in productivity and reduced leisure and personal time. It will also reduce the reliability of goods reaching the port, airport and other destinations on time . The number of deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians and cyclists will remain unacceptably high. This will result in social and economic costs, including social trauma, lost productivity, and increased healthcare costs . Reductions in safety, amenity and convenience will deter walking and cycling, impacting negatively on the health benefits that come from using active modes and the associated environmental benefits of reduced transport emissions . Increased noise, pollution and severance will affect the amenity and attractiveness of Wellington’s central city as a place in which to live, do business and visit . The transport system will remain vulnerable to disruption from day to day incidents and large-scale hazard events. Smaller disruption events will have more far reaching impacts because the transport system will be operating at capacity for more of the day. Large scale hazard events will result in long recovery times for the region’s key lifelines. 3.5. Transport System Opportunities Addressing the problems identified above creates the opportunity to improve a number of social, economic and environmental outcomes for the city and region. These key opportunities are to: . Shape urban growth and activate urban regeneration – by significantly increasing accessibility to the central city and amenity within it, land use intensification will be facilitated in locations that support compact and sustainable urban form, boosting agglomeration benefits and land value uplift . Create city streets that are more attractive places to be – through less traffic, slower traffic speeds, less noise and air pollution, and enhanced street level amenity, city streets will be safer and more pleasant places for people . Enhance travel choice for access to, from, within and through the central city – through a range of travel options that provide safe, convenient, attractive, and reliable journeys . Support increased productivity – through more reliable and predictable journey times, people will be able to use their time more productively and freight efficiencies can be unlocked. Less disruption from incidents affecting the transport network will mean less lost time and economic cost to the region. Technology advances will help to unlock the full potential of transport investment and support more efficient movement of people and freight . Improve community health and wellbeing – through more people walking, cycling and using public transport, with significant associated health benefits. Better access to employment, education, services and facilities will contribute to social inclusion and community wellbeing . Support enhanced environmental outcomes – through more people using low or no emission transport options (walking, cycling and public transport) and through increasing urban densities near the city centre and other key centres so that more destinations will be within convenient walking and cycling distances.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 23
PART A – Strategic Assessment
Key pieces of evidence for these opportunities and consequences include: Wellington CBD has the most productive jobs and highest employment density in New Zealand, with a wage premium of between $13,000 and $20,000. During the morning peak, 50% of rail passengers arrive between 7:50am and 8:20pm and 40% of people arriving by bus do so between 8:00am and 8:30am. Several public transport services that arrive during this time are at capacity. Forecast growth will mean that more services operate at capacity and people will increasingly respond by changing their travel behaviour. The commuter rail network is forecast to reach capacity by 2028. The bus network is forecast to reach capacity by 2026. This could result in 3000 jobs being deferred or located elsewhere. Cyclists account for 1% of distance travelled and 20% of transport related deaths and serious injuries in Wellington City. Nearly 1 in 3 people would prefer to cycle, less than 1 in 10 regularly do. 55% of people say they would cycle more if infrastructure was improved. Three out of the ten assessed CBD streets have Very Poor levels of urban amenity (influenced by traffic volumes, traffic speed, footpath area, vehicle traffic area, footpath and road material, density of street furniture, and green space coverage). A large-scale hazard event could disrupt road access to and through Wellington City for up to three months. Even a relatively small-scale event can come at a significant cost, with the storm event in June 2013 estimated to cost the region $43M4. 3.5.1. Technological changes Transport technology advances are likely to bring significant benefits to Wellington’s transport system. For example: . Modern vehicle safety systems will enable vehicles to travel at an optimum distance for any given speed. In conjunction with autonomous braking this will improve safety outcomes for vehicle occupants and for pedestrians and cyclists . The advent of autonomous vehicles could make the system more energy efficient through smoother acceleration and braking. In conjunction with more advanced network management systems this will make better use of transport infrastructure by keeping traffic flowing smoothly and reducing ‘stop-start’ events on the network . The increased availability and use of electric vehicles (including electrically assisted bicycles) will bring major benefits from reduced greenhouse and other emissions . The increased use of mobility-as-a-service (the use of information systems to enable customers to have more flexibility to choose the mode of travel for particular journeys on a pay-per-use basis) may lead to reduced car ownership, and a willingness to use other modes more often than is currently the case.
4 The transport impacts of the 20 June 2013 storm (Ministry of Transport, NZ Transport Agency, KiwiRail, GWRC)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 24
PART A – Strategic Assessment
. While technological change will bring major benefits, it also has the potential to be major ‘disruptor’ of the transport system, producing negative results that are not sought by LGWM. For example: . The advent of autonomous vehicles may lead to more vehicle kilometres travelling on the network, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. It may also act as a disincentive for people to use public transport, adding to congestion . The increased use of mobility-as-a-service may lead to the increased circulation of taxis and ride sharing vehicles around the network waiting to pick up passengers. This could worsen congestion . A particular issue will be the impact of autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing on the effectiveness of parking controls. At present the high cost of parking in the central city plays a crucial role in managing demand for private vehicle use, particularly for commuting journeys. The use of ride-sharing and potentially autonomous vehicles could see a reduction in the effectiveness of this pricing mechanism as the main demand management tool. In summary, technological changes may be helpful in addressing key problems, but there is uncertainty about the net effect of technological changes on the key issue of growing demand for trips with constrained network capacity. It seems very unlikely that technology will solve this problem alone without other changes also being made to the way the transport system is configured and operated.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 25
PART A – Programme Objectives
4. PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES 4.1. Urban Design and Transport Principles Feedback from early public engagement in mid-2016 indicated that people want a liveable city that is easy to get around. They also want less traffic and congestion, together with good public transport, walkability, and the ability to cycle safely. Access to the waterfront and harbour, and availability of parking are also key issues for many people. Using the results from public feedback the LGWM team developed 12 urban design and transport principles, which are summarised under the key elements of the Wellington future vision in Figure 14.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 26
PART A – Programme Objectives
Wellington Future Vision
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Guiding Principles
Figure 14 Alignment between Wellington future vision and LGWM guiding principles
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 27
PART A – Programme Objectives
4.2. LGWM Investment Objectives Based on initial feedback from the public in 2016 and the formulation of the 12 guiding principles, a set of programme objectives was developed. Following further engagement with the public in 2017, these objectives were refined and developed into investment objectives through the addition of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The five investment objectives with their associated KPIs are summarised below:
OBJECTIVE: A transport KEY PERFORMANCE Description system that… INDICATOR
A measure of the quality of the urban environment including greenspace, urban Amenity Index design, traffic volumes/speeds, and pedestrian
space
Enhances the liveability Carbon dioxide Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central of the central city emissions city
Urban An assessment of the opportunities for urban development development and value uplift potential
Network The number of people living and working within Provides more efficient catchment 30 minutes of key locations
and reliable access to support growth Travel time The reliability of travel time for journeys by reliability different modes to key regional locations
The ratio of people travelling to the central city System (by all modes) against private vehicles travelling occupancy to the central city
Reduces reliance on Level of service private vehicle travel Delays for people walking in the central city
for walking
Level of service An assessment of the quality of cycling facilities for cycling
Improves safety for all Safety for An estimate of the safety benefits for people walking and walking and cycling in and around the central users cycling city Is adaptable to Network An assessment of the network’s resilience to
disruptions and future resilience disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards uncertainty
These investment objectives were subsequently developed into SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic, Time bound), as shown in Section 9 and Appendix C.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 28
PART B – Developing the Programme
PART B – DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME Overview An integrated and multi-modal improvement programme includes changes to infrastructure, services, operations and policies. The key challenge in developing a recommended LGWM investment programme was to carefully consider the many different ways of combining interventions into potential investment programmes, before narrowing down the options to a shortlist, and finally reaching conclusions on the preferred way forward. Developing the programme was carried out in several stages. The first stage (summarised in Part B1) was to develop an overall strategic response to address the problems and opportunities set out in Part A. Part B2 summarises some of the analysis done during and following the programme development. The final stage (summarised in Part B3) was to iteratively develop and assess programme options through a longlist and shortlist assessment process to arrive at a recommended programme of investment. Summary of Part B1 The following methodology was followed to develop the strategic response (summarised in Figure 15): . Identify a wide range of interventions and select ones that could be effectively combined into investment scenarios to address the problems and opportunities identified in Part A . Compile the selected interventions into ‘test scenarios’ that explore the key dimensions of choice for addressing the problems and opportunities at a system level . Assess the test scenarios qualitatively against the objectives, and use the insights from this assessment to develop the overall strategic response . Develop illustrative investment scenarios for the purpose of engaging with the public about the strategic response and the scale of investment they would like to see . Develop KPIs that underpin the programme objectives in order to create SMART investment objectives
Potential Engagement Test Scenarios Strategic Response SMART Objectives Interventions Scenarios
Figure 15 Programme Development Methodology – Part B1
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 29
PART B – Developing the Programme
Summary of Part B2 The following analyses were undertaken as LGWM developed and refined programme options (summarised in Figure 16): . Analysis of emerging programme components that was undertaken during the longlist and shortlist programme option development. . Ongoing further analysis of recommended programme of investment components to refine and inform the programme.
Programme Development Analysis Further Analysis
Figure 16 Programme Development Methodology – Part B2
Summary of Part B3 The following actions were undertaken to develop and assess programme options (summarised in Figure 17): . Develop a longlist of programme options and assess these for their performance against the investment objectives . Select a short list of programme options and refine the assessment of their performance against the investment objectives . Identify a recommended investment programme, optimise the programme detail, assess the programme, and identify key risks, uncertainties and opportunities.
Recommended Programme of Longlist Programme Options Shortlist Programmes Options Investment
Figure 17 Programme Development Methodology – Part B3
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 30
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Potential Interventions PART B1 – STRATEGIC RESPONSE This part summarises the process that was followed to develop the overall strategic response to address the problems and opportunities set out in Part A. 5. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS 5.1. Intervention Development and Assessment The initial process of identifying possible interventions is summarised below. A more detailed explanation can be found in Note 1 – Intervention Longlist Screen in Appendix D. 5.1.1. Identification An initial list of interventions was developed in a LGWM workshop. The process took into account feedback from the LGWM website, the LGWM phone survey, panel surveys from Greater Wellington Regional Council and Wellington City Council and feedback collected from stakeholders by the New Zealand Transport Agency. LGWM also looked at earlier work on Wellington’s transport options, such as the 2013 Wellington Public Transport Spine Study. 5.1.2. Categorisation The second stage in narrowing down the choices was to group the potential interventions by categories. The categories were simple groupings by common characteristics – for example, bringing together all of the potential interventions related to public transport. The set of categories adopted was: . Land-use intensification . Land-use dispersal . Manage demand: financial . Manage demand: non-financial . Enhance supply: high investment in road capacity . Enhance supply: high investment in public transport . Incremental improvements: road network . Incremental improvements: public transport network . Enhance interventions to motor vehicle use . Resilience-specific. 5.1.3. Assessment The potential interventions were subsequently assessed by a transport planning and evaluation group to determine which interventions should be candidates to be included in possible scenarios and programme options. The large majority were classified as ‘keep’ i.e. candidates for inclusion in the scenarios and long-list programme options. The possible reasons not to consider a potential intervention further were: . Fatal Flaw – A potential intervention had some characteristic that, in the professional judgment of the evaluators, meant it could not contribute to a possible programme option. Such reasons included expected cost being disproportionate to possible benefits, impracticality, or the concept having been tried previously without worthwhile results. . Exclude – Outside the programme scope or not an intervention that could be influenced by the programme. . Given – An intervention that had already been committed.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 31
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios 6. TEST SCENARIOS The standard business case methodology for this stage would have been to develop a longlist of programme options that would be compiled from a subset of the interventions. However, this would have resulted in the production in a very large number of programme options due to the complexity of the Wellington transport system. In order to narrow down the range of programme options to a manageable number, ‘test’ scenarios were developed to explore the likely range of realistic programme options at a high level. Scenarios were developed comprising interventions that were indicative in nature, but sufficiently detailed to explore interdependencies and enable qualitative assessment. 6.1. Test Scenario Development (2016) Development of a series of test scenarios began by considering the qualitative gap in the level of service for each mode, for each of four problem statement areas: reliability and economic productivity, liveability, safety, and resilience. Different scenarios focusing on each of the four problem areas were then created by considering the relative scale of different types of intervention that might achieve the desired outcomes for the emphasised problem area. The different intervention areas were: . Walking . Cycling . Public Transport . Commuter and Through Traffic . Local Streets Traffic . Hard TDM (pricing-based travel demand management) . Soft TDM (encouragement-based travel demand planning e.g. school travel planning) . Operations. This resulted in 15 test scenarios, targeted at achieving outcomes in LGWM problem areas and with each scenario focusing on a different approach to addressing the problems and opportunities. Some of the scenarios were intentionally extreme in order to test whether focusing on a single type of investment (such as additional road capacity or strengthened demand management) would perform well in addressing the problem areas. Table 5 sets out the relative scale of interventions to achieve outcomes in each of the problem areas for the fifteen test scenarios. Appendix E shows the types of interventions that might be expected to deliver these outcomes.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 32
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios
Table 5 Summary of Longlist Test Scenarios
EMPHASIS ANTICIPATED OUTCOME AND RELATIVE SCALE OF INTERVENTION
Test Scenario A - An economically Test Scenario B - An economically productive, Test Scenario C - An economically productive and inclusive city has a high modern city has very high standards of pedestrian productive city has an effective, level of motorised and public transport connectivity and a high quality environment, high capacity strategic road and mobility, allowing its citizens and especially in its city centre. The city is served with a public transport network, with a employees convenient, direct and rapid very effective public transport system, while the vibrant people-focused city centre. access to all parts of the city and wider roads have sufficient capacity for essential traffic. region. Any excess demand to the city centre is self-managed.
Test Scenario D - An economically productive city has a high Test Scenario E - A productive, economically rational city has very high level of motorised mobility and good public transport, standards of pedestrian connectivity and a high quality environment, allowing its citizens and employees convenient and direct especially in its city centre. The city is served with a very effective public access to most parts of the city and wider region. transport system, while road use is managed with advanced systems to
ensure availability for essential traffic. Reliability and Economic Productivity Economic and Reliability
Test Scenario F - A liveable city is one where there are low Test Scenario G - A highly liveable city has easy, affordable access for all, levels of road traffic and most peoples' needs for travel are with excellent public transport, many shared use and calmed streets and a met through walking, cycling and public transport. Roads strong feeling of safety. are prioritised for more sustainable modes and managed with advanced systems to ensure availability for essential
traffic.
Test Scenario H - A highly liveable city is one where local Test Scenario I - A city has high liveability when people and freight heading Liveability streets are prioritised for people and separated from high to essential facilities throughout the city have high levels of vehicular access levels of motorised traffic while the city centre is more served by other modes that don't compete for space with through traffic.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 33
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios
EMPHASIS ANTICIPATED OUTCOME AND RELATIVE SCALE OF INTERVENTION
Test Scenario J - A safe city is one where Test Scenario K - A safe city has vulnerable users Test Scenario L - A safe city is one the evidential safety issues are separated from general traffic with road space where people are unlikely to have addressed as a priority. Vulnerable prioritised for active modes and public transport. a serious crash on the roads as
modes enjoy high levels of protection. Traffic is managed to reduce higher speed crashes they are designed and operated to
with advanced systems that also ensure sufficient the appropriate standard for their
availability for essential traffic. use. People feel secure when Safety travelling on public transport.
Test Scenario M - A resilient city has Test Scenario N - A more resilient city is one where Test Scenario O - A resilient city is focused on the evidential transport there are multiple transport options and where the secure against a variety of natural network issues and prioritised measures transport networks are suitably engineered. threats. It has redundancy in its to address them. Effective preparations have been made for transport system which is well- recovery. built and unlikely to suffer
catastrophic failure. Resilience
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 34
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios 6.2. Test Scenario Assessment High level multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was then carried out on 12 of the test scenarios to assess their likely performance in achieving the investment objectives and their underpinning key result areas (shown as Tier 2 criteria in Table 6 below)5. Three scenarios developed to focus on resilience outcomes were not included in this assessment as it was deemed unrealistic to pursue a programme focused solely on resilience outcomes.
Table 6 Test scenario MCA criteria
TIER 1 TIER 2
A transport system Improved walkability in the CBD with better access to the waterfront that enhances the liveability of the Enhanced urban environment central city Reduced impact of motorised transport in CBD Minimised adverse effects on natural environment Minimised impacts on built environment No increase to number of vehicles in the CBD A transport system Increased reliability and improved access to and from CBD that provides more efficient and reliable Consistency with the Urban Growth Plan and Wellington Regional access to support Strategy growth Improved throughput of people and goods on strategic corridors Increased reliability of access to and from the airport, hospital and port Transport demand is able to be spread across the day (not just in peaks) Reduced PT travel time variability A transport system Increased PT catchment that reduces reliance on private vehicle Improved pedestrian mode share travel Improved cycling mode share Increased vehicle occupancy Improved PT mode share A transport system Reduced deaths and serious injuries for road users that improves safety for all users Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists
5 Key result areas were initially developed as a way of developing performance measures for each of the objectives and were superseded with the development of SMART investment objective KPIs.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 35
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios
A transport system Adaptability to be able to respond and recover from unplanned events that is adaptable to disruptions and future Adaptability and flexibility to cope with future uncertainty and uncertainty technologies
Implementability Consentability
Feasibility
Cost Capital cost
Operational cost
The MCA results and accompanying report are shown in Appendix F. The MCA process outcomes were summarised as: . Scenario B and C were the equal best performing scenarios against all of the criteria assessed . Scenario C was the best performing scenario against the second efficiency and growth criteria (Consistency with the Urban Growth Plan and Wellington Regional Strategy) . Scenario H was the third ranked scenario in the assessment . Scenario E performed best against the third criteria, reducing reliance on private vehicles, due to the combination of pricing and PT enhancements . Scenario J was the most implementable scenario . Scenario L was one of the poorer performing scenarios as whilst it did not have significant impact, it also did not score highly against the majority of the assessment criteria . Scenarios A and D were the lowest ranked of those assessed, however scenarios A and D also performed well against the criteria associated with and efficient and reliable transport system that supports growth. 6.3. Test Scenarios Conclusion The assessment of the test scenarios produced useful insights, and these were used as a basis for developing the LGWM Strategic Response. The key insights were: . The performance of the test scenarios was variable across the full range of key result areas. Extreme scenarios did not perform well against the key result areas. Wellington has a complex transport system that is highly interdependent. Focusing on specific outcomes of the transport system means that other outcomes may not also improve or may become worse as trade-offs occur. It was concluded that a holistic multi-modal approach was needed . A pricing-only approach (with optimised use of the existing system), would not on its own address the fundamental issue that transport demand is increasing because the city is growing, and the current transport system will not have the capacity to accommodate the extra journeys in the long term . Increasing the capacity of State Highway 1 in isolation would not produce acceptable levels of service for traffic accessing the central city due to the already constrained nature of the CBD
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 36
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios street network. Additional capacity and parking within the street network would be undesirable from an urban amenity and place-function perspective . Movement within the central city is important but there is also a need to enable people to access the central city from more distant areas. This would need to be by walking, cycling, a high-quality public transport network, and supported by travel demand management . There are opportunities to improve the management and operation of the existing transport system and the way in which people use it. For example, optimising traffic signals to provide more green time to pedestrians near the railway station when trains arrive. These opportunities could be tailored to maximise the benefits of whichever wider scenario was eventually selected. In light of these insights, a decision was made by LGWM to develop a set of multimodal scenarios that would integrate the best performing elements from the test scenarios to produce a range of illustrative scenarios that would perform more consistently across all the key result areas.
6.4. Community and Stakeholder Workshops (early 2017) In March and April 2017 LGWM held a series of community and stakeholder workshops on key issues, facilitated by an independent research company. The purpose of the workshops was to seek feedback on whether the work was heading in the right direction, and views on what was needed to be covered by the scenarios for public engagement later in the year.
The test scenarios that were assessed as performing well in the MCA assessment were used as a basis for identifying focus areas to seek feedback on:
. Better public transport . Improving the State Highway . Active transport improvements (walking and cycling) . Managing travel demand. Attendees identified the following information as something that would like to see covered by scenarios for public engagement later in 2017:
. Evidence that supports each scenario . Which interventions have been rejected and why . Descriptions of land use and planning constraints . Costs for each scenario . How each scenario fits into an integrated and holistic plan for the city and the region . More information about specific interventions.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 37
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Developing the Strategic Response 7. DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC RESPONSE LGWM developed a strategic response to the problems and opportunities identified above. The strategic response is summarised in Table 7. It sets out the overall approach to improving Wellington’s transport system that would address the identified problems and opportunities in a way that best achieves the programme objectives. It also provides examples of high level ‘strategic interventions’ that will help transform the current transport system into the desired one. The strategic response acknowledges that Wellington will be able to meet the challenge of growth – to absorb additional residents and to continue to sustainably perform its core economic function – only if the transport system can move more people, goods and services reliably without more vehicles, as part of an integrated urban strategy for the city. This means: . Supporting a safe and liveable city where many more people will live, work and play . Recognising and balancing the needs of all transport users and those affected by the transport system . Increasing resilience to incidents, natural events and disruptive technology . Encouraging development in a way that supports more sustainable transport choices.
Without implementing such an integrated strategy, the challenges facing Wellington’s transport system will threaten to derail its productivity, liveability and attractiveness.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 38
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Developing the Strategic Response
Table 7 Strategic Response Table
TRANSPORT SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES STRATEGIC APPROACH STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS
A transport system that moves more people, Make the most of what we have Encourage mode shift to walking, cycling, goods and services reliably with fewer Optimise the transport system and make it safer and public transport vehicles, while: Encourage people to walk, cycle, and use public transport more, and use Enable mode shift with improvements to Supporting a safe and liveable city where many cars less walking, cycling and public transport more people will live, work and play Deliver a step change in public transport infrastructure, and land use policies Substantially improve public transport capacity, quality and performance Recognising and balancing the needs of all Create dedicated/priority routes to support transport users and those affected by the Encourage urban intensification near public transport transport system key changes Improve journeys to, from and in the central city Increasing resilience to incidents, natural events Prioritise people walking, cycling, and using public transport on key Reduce road space for general traffic in the and disruptive technology corridors central city and along dedicated/ priority Encouraging development in a way that supports Improve accessibility and amenity of places and streets routes more sustainable transport choices. Ensure goods and services journeys are reliable Manage the network to limit increases in Improve journeys through and around the central city general traffic and operate the network Reduce conflicts between different transport users and traffic flows safely and efficiently Increase the resilience and reliability of our transport corridors, Encourage through traffic to relocate away especially to the hospital, port, and airport from the central city and other sensitive locations
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 39
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement 8. SCENARIOS FOR ENGAGEMENT 8.1. Engagement Scenarios Development To illustrate how the strategic response might be translated into a programme of interventions, LGWM developed four future scenarios with differing levels of transport intervention. The scenarios formed the basis of a public engagement exercise in late 2017. Public and stakeholder feedback was sought on the scenarios, and the willingness to accept increasing impacts (on-street parking, built environment and heritage, environment, construction disruption, cost) in order to achieve increasing benefits against the objectives. The scenarios were incremental, as shown in Table 8. . Scenario A included making most of what we have got by prioritising walking, public transport and cycling in the central city, and improving amenity and safety in the CBD . Scenario B included additional investment, reducing conflicts at the Basin Reserve enabling current bus services to be transformed into a mass transit system on spine routes, and providing better access to the east . Scenario C included additional investment, reducing conflicts with vehicle traffic for pedestrians, public transport services and cyclists in Te Aro, improving access to the airport and other regional destinations from the north, and unlocking redevelopment opportunities in Te Aro . Scenario D included additional investment, increasing capacity through the Terrace Tunnel, enabling less through traffic on waterfront quays, improving safety and amenity in the CBD, and improving access to the port from the north. A more complete description of the scenarios can be found in the publicly available engagement material6.
Table 8 Summary of Engagement Scenarios
SCENARIO RATIONALE KEY INTERVENTIONS
Prioritise walking, public transport and Dedicated bus lanes on the Golden Mile, improved walking cycling in the central city and cycling environment in the central city, with lower CBD speed limits Scenario Improve amenity and safety in the CBD A Use traffic signalling and other intelligent transport systems to align waiting times at junctions and crossings with agreed priorities for different users of the transport system
As above plus: Scenario A plus: Reduce conflicts at the Basin Reserve Basin Reserve grade separation, Mt Victoria tunnel enabling current bus services to be duplication and Ruahine/Wellington St widening (with public Scenario B transformed into a mass transit system on transport, active mode and high occupancy vehicle priority), spine routes enables extension of continuous prioritised public transport spine to the hospital, Kilbirnie and the airport Provide better access to the east
6 http://getwellymoving.co.nz/public-engagement/
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 40
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement
As above plus: Scenario B plus: Reduce conflicts with vehicle traffic for Shift eastbound State Highway 1 from Vivian St to Karo Drive pedestrians, public transport services and alignment with cut and cover sections cyclists in Te Aro Scenario C Change priorities on Vivian Street to reduce severance and Improve access to the airport and other improve amenity regional destinations from the north
Unlock redevelopment opportunities in Te Aro As above plus: Scenario C plus: Remove Terrace Tunnel bottleneck, enabling Duplication of Terrace Tunnel, an additional southbound lane less through traffic on waterfront quays on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay and Scenario D removal of traffic lane on waterfront quays Improve safety and amenity in the CBD
Improve access to the port from the north
8.2. Engagement Scenarios Assessment Prior to beginning engagement, LGWM undertook a high-level assessment of the four shortlisted scenarios against the programme guiding principles and programme objectives so that the engagement would have context on the relative scale of benefits and impacts of the four scenarios. The assessment was based on feedback from a panel of technical specialists, using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative measures. The technical specialist assessment is shown in Appendix G. The assessment was indicative only as the scenarios were high level approaches. Their purpose was to help understand how different large improvement projects might perform as a package. A summary of the assessment is shown in Table 9 and Table 10. A more complete description of the scenario’s assessment can be found in the publicly available engagement material7.
7 http://getwellymoving.co.nz/public-engagement/
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 41
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement
Table 9 Engagement Scenarios benefits
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 42
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement
Table 10 Engagement Scenarios impacts
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 43
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement 8.3. Engagement Feedback The key messages from the engagement were: . Broad support for the interventions in Scenario A – but most thought it did not go far enough . This suggests an initial focus should be on the following as a minimum: o Optimising operation of existing infrastructure (“early improvements”) o Lowering speeds in central city o Restricting private vehicle access on the Golden Mile o Improving walkability and cycling in central city o Prioritising buses on the spine route through the central city . There is a need to assess options for: o Mass transit o Basin and Mt Victoria o Karo Drive/Te Aro o Pricing. This engagement also highlighted several key themes which are summarised as follows: . Immediate refinement and long-term changes are sought for public transport . Reduction of congestion is universally supported . Widespread support for active transport infrastructure and prioritisation . Opposition to infrastructure development which increases car use . A regional, integrated approach is required . It is time to act, while being mindful of cost . Predicted changes require future-focused solutions . Basin traffic flow issues need to be solved, but diverse views are held . Wellington-specific solutions required. The engagement feedback, and the Global Research summary of the feedback is publicly available online8. 8.4. LGWM Response to Engagement Scenarios Feedback LGWM developed a response to the engagement feedback to demonstrate how the insights from engagement would be taken forward. This is summarised below in Table 11. A more complete explanation of this summary is publicly available9.
8 https://getwellymoving.co.nz/about/public-engagement/feedback/ 9 https://www.getwellymoving.co.nz/home/response-to-nov-dec-2017-public-engagement/
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 44
PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement
Table 11 LGWM response to key themes from engagement scenarios feedback
THEME WORK REQUIRED PROPOSED DIRECTION
1. Support for better public transport – now and long Complete “early improvements”, including those proposed in feedback (which are not already Include early improvements in earlier stages of the Recommended Programme of Investment term committed to in public transport programmes). (RPI) where they align with LGWM objectives. Identify public transport improvements that can proceed without major investment. Ensure early public transport interventions are compatible with wider RPI. Investigate routes and options for mass transit to the airport, and consider: Incorporate preferred mass transit into RPI, and identify infrastructure to support it. Network planning (including interaction with bus network) Identify options for accelerated delivery. Urban development/demand Highlight city-building potential of mass transit. Feasibility and costing 2. Universal support for less congestion Use feedback to help set targets for travel time and variability KPIs for RPI. Include interventions to reduce negative impacts of congestion on the city. Develop KPIs for “amenity” and “system occupancy” (ratio of people to vehicles). Indicate potential impact of congestion charging as part of the RPI narrative. Consider congestion charging. 3. Widespread support for walking and cycling Develop a more comprehensive programme of walking improvements, guided by feedback where Include more detailed walking improvements in earlier stages of RPI. improvements and priority practical Include improvements beyond the CBD (e.g. Cobham Drive crossing). Describe a connected cycling network in the city, guided by feedback where practical Include a more detailed programme of cycling improvements into the earlier stages of the recommended programme 4. Opposition to new infrastructure that encourages Ensure analysis provides info on multi-modal and redevelopment benefits. Ensure new infrastructure supports LGWM multi-modal priorities, and is not just for cars. car use Develop a central narrative that better describes our multi-modal approach Note that focus is on a nil net increase in vehicles.
5. A regional, integrated approach is required Report on wider regional issues that have helped shape RPI. Ensure the RPI includes reference to the type of interventions needed beyond the LGWM area. Undertake further work, either as LGWM or in parallel (by partners), to: Improve public transport to the north and west Develop complementary measures to improve public transport uptake around region Reduce overall regional trip demand and spread peak demand 6. It is time to act, while being mindful of cost Complete work on the early improvements programme Bring all improvements practical into the earlier stages of the RPI. Include economic analysis in assessment Demonstrate how the RPI contributes to the new GPS. Review LGWM objectives and KPIs against the new Government Policy Statement 7. Future-proofed solutions are required Review technology improvements that are consistent with LGWM objectives and can be Report on technology issues that have helped shape RPI. incorporated into recommended programme. Explain how RPI will enable the network to adapt to/facilitate technology change. Include review/decision points in RPI that allow for technology change. 8. Basin traffic flow issues need to be solved, but Use the feedback to help define parameters in the RPI around the Basin improvements. Include a preferred approach to Basin issues in the RPI, and outline what needs to be addressed diverse views are held in the next stage. Describe a process to enable public input into design at Basin. 9. Wellington-specific solutions required Use the feedback on resilience, topography, and Wellington-specific issues to help develop and Ensure the RPI illustrates how interventions are responding to Wellington-specific issues. refine the recommended programme.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 45
PART B1 – Strategic Response: SMART Objective Development 9. SMART OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT Based on initial feedback from the public in 2016 (which culminated in the formulation of the 12 guiding principles), a set of benefit statements/programme objectives was developed by LGWM for further engagement with the public in 2017. These objectives were then developed into SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic, Time bound) through the refinement of KPIs. Appendix A, Table v shows a close alignment between the objectives and the principles, reflecting the importance given to public views about what the programme should deliver for Wellington. The five investment objectives with their associated KPIs are set out below with a more complete presentation shown in Appendix C. KPIs 1-I0 are intended to be used to assess the performance of different programme options and guide decision making. The remaining (unnumbered) KPIs are intended to help monitor programme success. Investment Objective 1: A transport system that enhances the liveability of the central city . KPI 1: Amenity Index - The quality of the urban environment, including greenspace, urban design, traffic volumes/speeds and pedestrian space . KPI 2: Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city . KPI 3: Opportunities for urban development and value uplift . KPI: Monitor traffic Noise . KPI: Monitor liveability Survey – Quality of Road Network, Quality of Public Transport (Economist Intelligence Unit Global)
. KPI: Monitor air quality – particulates, NO2 Investment Objective 2: A transport system that reduces reliance on private vehicle travel . KPI 4: Improve the system occupancy - The ratio of people travelling to the central city (by all modes) against the number of private vehicles . KPI 5: Delays for people walking in the central city . KPI 6: The quality of cycling facilities - ‘Danish method’ cycling infrastructure level of service . KPI: Monitor mode share within CBD / VKT within the CBD Investment Objective 3: A transport system that provides more efficient and reliable access to support growth . KPI 7: The number of people living and working within 30 mins of key destinations . KPI 8: The reliability of travel time by different modes to key regional destinations . KPI: Monitor number of people travelling to CBD Investment Objective 4: A transport system that improves safety for all users . KPI 9: Deaths and serious injuries for people walking and cycling in and around the . central city . KPI: Monitor total casualties by severity and by mode Investment Objective 5: A transport system that is adaptable to disruptions and future uncertainty . KPI 10: Network resilience to disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards . KPI: Monitor lane availability reductions due to unplanned events
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 46
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis PART B2 – ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMME ELEMENTS This part summarises some of the technical analysis undertaken and commissioned by LGWM in developing and refining the recommended programme of investment. High level analysis was undertaken to build confidence that interventions could address the issues identified. Sufficient options were considered in order to move forward to more detailed investigation and a thorough optioneering process. 10. PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Engagement, ongoing investigations, and discussion between LGWM programme partners highlighted a need to undertake further investigation in urban development potential, pricing, future uncertainty and technology, mass transit, State Highway 1 through Te Aro, and the transport system near the Basin Reserve. The development of this work was iterative during the longlist and shortlist programme option development. A summary of some of the technical documents referenced in this section can be found in Appendix N. 10.1. LGWM as an enabler for urban development Transport improvements impact on urban development potential and property values in a number of ways: . Transport improvements result in improvements to the accessibility of locations (considering both speed and capacity) and the amenity / quality of travel and the urban environment (i.e. nicer vehicles, urban realm improvements). These benefits are ‘capitalised’ into land values – i.e. people are willing to pay more to live in more accessible places or more attractive environments. . Improved accessibility may also make locations more productive by increasing their ‘economic mass’, e.g. number of jobs, level of economic activity. Economic theory and evidence on agglomeration economies finds that spatial concentrations of economic activity are associated with higher levels of economic productivity resulting from enhanced ‘sharing’, ‘learning’ and ‘matching’ mechanisms. This may lead to further benefits that are in turn (partly) capitalised into land values. . Firms and workers may respond by relocating to areas that have experienced improved productivity / accessibility. This may in turn strengthen agglomeration forces (albeit potentially at the cost of some increased congestion) and lead to increased land value uplift.
Work was undertaken to understand the potential impact of LGWM on land use changes (mainly population and jobs distribution) and property values. The relevant papers are summarised below. 10.1.1. Possible Impacts of LGWM Interventions on Land Values (LGWM, June 2018) This paper examines the possible impacts of two LGWM interventions on land values in Wellington City. One intervention is a vehicle tunnel in Te Aro which removes eastbound State Highway traffic from Vivian Street and allows an urban park to be created on top of the tunnel. The other intervention is mass transit from Wellington Station to the Airport. The paper considers two forms of mass transit: light rail and bus rapid transit. The paper finds that mass transit could increase surrounding land values by up to $1 billion. The level of increase depends on the amenity improvements and District Plan zoning changes that are included in the project and the nature of the mass transit system that is provided. Rezoning can result in significant value uplift where land use is currently low density and interventions spur development to higher density levels. Given that the CBD and Te Aro are already zoned for high density, there is little additional potential benefit to be realised in these locations. The value uplift associated with mass transit assumes that rezoning in Newtown through to Rongotai could achieve mixed use, higher density development alongside mass transit. Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 47
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis In contrast, the paper concludes that removal of State Highway traffic from Vivian Street is unlikely to significantly increase surrounding property values. However, the opportunity to increase green space in Te Aro through the creation of a new park above the tunnel may improve property values, but will likely have a localised and small impact. The potential total land value benefit of a Te Aro tunnel could be up to $19 million in 2043 (undiscounted). This work was then externally peer reviewed in June 2018. 10.1.2. Land use change arising from the Let’s Get Welly Moving programme (MRCagney, July 2018) This report analyses the potential impact of LGWM on the future distribution of population and employment in Greater Wellington. It draws upon recently published guidance in the UK’s Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) as well as a recent NZ Transport Agency research report on ‘dynamic WEBs’ (Volterra Partners, 2017). The authors estimate that there may be annual economic benefits on the order of $5,000 to $10,000 per additional city centre job that is ‘unlocked’ by the LGWM programme. These benefits are additional to conventional transport benefits and wider economic benefits measured under a ‘static’ land use scenario. The authors have assumed that LGWM will affect how projected future growth is distributed, but that it will not increase the overall regional growth rate. Under their ‘composite’ scenario for land use change: . The city centre’s population is predicted to be slightly lower than in LGWM’s ‘base case’ scenario, while employment is predicted to be slightly higher . The remainder of Wellington City would experience increases in both population and employment . Other territorial authorities would experience reductions in population and employment.
These changes are expected to have the following impacts: . Increase demand for the new rapid transit spine by increasing the residential population along the corridor and increasing city centre employment . Increase economic productivity by moderately increasing the share of regional employment located in the city centre and in the Newtown area . Potentially generate other land use change benefits through revitalisation in the Newtown area.
Note that the modelling does not include the effect a cordon charge would have on land uses and values. 10.2. Pricing Managing demand, particularly at peak times, is an intervention that can improve the efficiency and operation of the system without adding significant system capacity. This can be achieved in a number of ways. One option that LGWM has considered at a high level is pricing. The Wellington central city lends itself to pricing to a certain extent, due to its urban form and function, network characteristics, travel patterns, and public transport alternatives. Pricing could take many forms, including a parking levy, an inner cordon charge, an outer cordon charge, a State Highway 1 toll, a GPS based charge, or some combination. LGWM testing of these pricing tools has assumed changes to the current legislative framework, and limited consideration was given to the practicalities of implementation and enforcement at this stage of investigation. Pricing could deliver significant benefits, such as reduced congestion, reduced emissions and improved amenity values. It could also defer or remove the need for significant highway infrastructure interventions and provide revenue that could be used to invest in public transport, walking and cycling facilities. However, if not
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 48
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis carefully considered and planned, pricing can result in undesirable outcomes such as re-routing traffic to sensitive areas. 10.3. Alternative Futures and Technology 10.3.1. Alternative Futures Forecasting the effects of land use and transport change is an inherently uncertain activity. As such, LGWM has tested a number of alternative future scenarios to understand how the programme performs under a range of conditions. These have included both medium and high population and employment growth scenarios, redistributing the growth along core public transport spines, and scenarios with variable growth rates between different transport modes. As the programme develops further, additional analysis will be undertaken to ascertain how uncertainty might affect future outcomes and incorporate this work into developing a programme that is flexible and adaptable to change. In order to account for uncertainty in relation to future travel behaviour and preferences, two future outcomes have been represented and used to assess the programme: . ‘Trend future’ - Continuation of recent trend growth with reference to commuter trips to Wellington CBD in morning peak - all future growth in peak hour trips to Wellington CBD assigned to active modes or public transport . ‘Balanced future’ - A more balanced future with small increases in peak period car demand but more significant increases in PT and active mode trips to the CBD. In order to account for uncertainty in relation to future growth and land use, two future outcomes have been represented and used to assess the programme: . A medium growth and land use scenario developed from Profile ID population projections which are themselves developed in collaboration with regional territorial authorities and broadly correspond to Statistics NZ medium population projections. This scenario is ‘probable, plausible and achievable’ - analysis undertaken by the territorial authorities shows that the capacity (of land) exists to cater for the level of development envisaged . An alternative high growth and land use scenario that assumes higher population and employment growth. This is distributed according to current forecast distributions, with some re-distribution of population growth to areas that benefit from improved accessibility resulting from the LGWM programme. No substantive work has been undertaken to understand whether the capacity (of land) and other constraints (e.g. water infrastructure, plan changes) could accommodate the level of development envisaged. 10.3.2. Technology As discussed in Section 3.5.1, the potential impacts of technological advances in the medium-long term can be used as a catalyst for improving transport outcomes, for example, in the areas of safety and emissions. LGWM has not identified any specific items that are required to facilitate these changes. However, there are areas of technological change where LGWM as identified an opportunity to support or facilitate in order to maximise transport outcomes as follows: Digital Connectivity . Use of digital connectivity to avoid unnecessary journeys where economic, through continued and increased working with employers and schools to plan travel.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 49
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis Shared Mobility . Integrating all the region’s mobility service providers into an integrated payment and journey planning platform (mobility-as-a-service) to optimise use of the vehicle fleet and improve vehicle occupancy – signalling Wellington as wishing to be an early adopter of any mobility-as-a-service national initiatives . Further collaborations such as the NEC Smart Cities initiative . Implementing LGWM may result in infrastructure that could encourage shared mobility, including hubs where people interchange from shared services onto mass transit or other shared modes (allowing seamless transfers). Autonomous Vehicles . As aspects of any preferred programme advance in detail and investigation, it is important to consider how autonomous vehicles can integrate with the transport system; especially given that mass transit vehicles are likely early adopters of full automation. Regulatory impacts are best addressed at the national level. Electric Vehicles . Further stages of LGWM will consider how any proposed electric public transport vehicles could be charged (e.g. while in motion or at signals) . Consider on-street parking with charging facilities to raise the visibility of electric vehicles along with shared mobility. On-street parking . Use of parking occupancy data to responsively price (e.g. by time of day, level of demand), and identify opportunities to reassign parking to other uses either permanently or dynamically e.g. assigning a carshare park, providing a peak time mass transit lane, supporting cycle lanes that reduce parking or reassigning space for non-transport uses. Most of these tactical decisions only need to be taken at the strategic level at this stage. Actual improvements and changes can be accommodated within the LGWM programme as it is developed, through normal Regional/National Land Transport Plan cycles. For example, the technology for charging electric vehicles at traffic lights could be implemented simultaneously with normally scheduled road resealing as the new charging technology becomes available. It is important that LGWM maintains forward visibility of technological changes and how they can contribute towards maximising transport outcomes. Accordingly, LGWM’s approach is to proactively harness technology in a way that enables the full potential of investments in infrastructure and services to be achieved. In particular, LGWM’s focus is harnessing technology change in the following areas: . Prioritising the use of the network for active modes and public transport vehicle through, for example, dynamic management of corridors for bus priority . Encouraging increased electric vehicle uptake through, for example, the provision of more charging stations . Encouraging use of shared vehicles and public transport through, for example, the coordinated roll out of mobility-as-a-service . Managing networks and travel demand to ensure the transport system operates reliably through, for example, improved on-street parking management. It is also worth noting that several technology aspects and opportunities are best delivered outside of LGWM (e.g. nationally led autonomous vehicle testing legislation).
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 50
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis 10.4. Mass Transit 10.4.1. Background A mass transit system was identified as a key element of the 2008 Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Strategy. The Strategy highlighted the need for a high quality, high frequency public transport spine through central Wellington city between Wellington railway station and the southern and eastern suburbs. The 2014 Wellington Public Transport Spine Study (PTSS) investigated this further, focusing on the feasibility of mode and route options to deliver a core public transport spine and achieve a step change in public transport level of service through this corridor. In 2017 bus rapid transit (BRT) investigations considered the recommendations of the PTSS in greater detail, focusing on the feasibility of BRT along the spine further. The PTSS was reviewed in 2017, looking at whether earlier recommendations were still valid, given changes that had occurred since its completion, and provided commentary about how international experience of mass transit planning and implementation could relate to Wellington. This work informed the presentation of mass transit in the LGWM engagement scenarios, which showed mass transit along a single CBD spine (via the Golden Mile) and branching off to the south and east at the Basin Reserve in three of the four scenarios. 10.4.2. LGWM further work following engagement Engagement feedback suggested other route options for consideration and prompted consideration of how mass transit should fit with the wider public transport network. Detailed network planning investigations were completed to understand options for delivering an integrated public transport network that would best leverage the benefits of mass transit within the LGWM study area. The key findings were: . Mass transit in Wellington should have the following characteristics o High frequency (at least 10-minutes all-day, every day) o Fast and reliable compared to car o High quality infrastructure o High capacity vehicles o High quality electric vehicles . Two primary public transport spines are required through Wellington CBD (Golden Mile and Quays/Waterfront) to accommodate future passenger demand while ensuring reliable journey times and avoiding forced transfers at the CBD fringe . A number of key corridor trade-offs have been identified. A piece of work was completed to examine the possible impacts of potential LGWM interventions on land values in Wellington City (see Section 10.1.1). This research concluded that by improving amenity and accessibility, mass transit projects can increase property values, potentially providing a revenue stream to help finance investments. A shared vision of the city’s future was developed to help inform the mass transit elements and to underpin the LGWM programme (see Section 2.9.1). The future opportunities and issues for the city were mapped. A number of potential ‘activation areas’ including the waterfront, Te Aro and Newtown were identified; all of which have influenced the route alignment preference for the mass transit route. Work was commissioned to provide advice on high level engineering feasibility and issues along the mass transit route. This work considered different route choices and an indication of their potential impacts on land requirements, cost, feasible gradients, parking, other transport modes, and utility service assets. A further review was commissioned to provide expert advice on the mass transit issues and assumptions under consideration (Review of Wellington LRT Concept – Risks and Opportunities). The review provided a
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 51
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis summary of the high-level risks and opportunities associated with implementing LRT in Wellington, based on international experience of planning and delivering LRT systems. To maximise the opportunities for Wellington it was recommended that clear objectives for LRT be determined to deal with the expected compromises (trade-offs) and that considerations of potential urban regeneration, place-making and future patronage were all key factors in deciding an appropriate route. The review also highlighted some significant technical challenges for implementing LRT in the Wellington context, particularly due to topography. Beyond the CBD/central city engineering solutions are likely to be relatively expensive and the lower patronage potential, due to more dispersed development patterns south and east of Newtown, make it more difficult to justify the high cost of investment. The likely spatial extent of light rail in Wellington is limited by topography and urban form. Further detailed work was recommended before any firm conclusions could be made on whether LRT is a viable investment solution for Wellington, and on the most appropriate route and network form it should take. 10.4.3. Identification of a preferred mass transit route and mode for evaluation The various pieces of further work outlined above were used to inform identification of a preferred mass transit system route for evaluation as part of the recommended programme of investment. Light rail was assumed as it represented the highest cost option that delivered the greatest opportunities for urban development. The LRT component followed one of the two central city spines from Wellington railway station to Wellington airport. The route and technology choices – LRT along the waterfront, Taranaki Street, Adelaide Road, Mt Albert tunnel, Rongotai Road, Cobham Drive - were included in this option for the purpose of evaluation. The other central city spine along the Golden Mile would be upgraded to service the many bus routes that would form the rest of the public transport system for Wellington. Consideration of the LRT corridor on the second central city spine as a preferred route included: . Maximising urban development potential . Creating an attractive public transport service with good patronage . Resilience to seismic events . Fit with the existing network and minimising conflict with other traffic movements . Avoiding challenging corners, geometry and other engineering constraints . Parking impact . Impact on retail activity . Access to key land uses such as schools . Cost and ability to deliver . Property impacts
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 52
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis
Figure 18 Preferred route for mass transit between Wellington Railway Station and Wellington International Airport Necessarily there is a level of uncertainty of the preferred LRT route at this PBC stage. Several key route options and alternatives will be investigated in detail and confirmed at the next stage of the business case. This further work will also consider options for stabling, technology choice, and stations. 10.5. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro Preliminary investigations and community engagement highlighted the Vivian Street and Karo Drive corridors as areas of conflict between State Highway 1 east-west movements and local north-south movements. There was also the perception that the State Highway corridors have severance impacts on the adjoining urban areas i.e. they act as barriers that deter movements across the corridor. This derives from the delay to north-south movements, particularly pedestrians waiting to cross the State Highway, and from the low amenity of the
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 53
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis corridors. Lastly, some respondents expressed the desire to remove through-traffic from Vivian Street as a way to reduce overall traffic on this street and in the central city.
Further investigations were undertaken to test whether a relocation of State Highway 1 traffic from Vivian Street to Karo Drive and possible undergrounding of a two-way State Highway along Karo Drive would help address these issues. The alternatives investigated include the following:
. A contraflow system using existing tunnels . A series of short tunnels . A longer, continuous tunnel
Contraflow using existing tunnels
This alternative would involve introducing a contraflow system on the existing State Highway corridor along the Terrace Tunnel trench, Karo Drive (at-grade) and Arras Tunnel. This would re-allocate one existing westbound traffic lane to eastbound through-traffic that does not have a destination within Te Aro. The logic behind this approach is that 25% to 30% of traffic on Vivian Street has a destination to the east and could bypass Te Aro, and be accommodated by a single eastbound lane along Karo Drive. Other traffic movements would continue to use Vivian Street similar to the current operation.
The investigations revealed significant constraints at the existing trench just south of the Terrace Tunnel which is not wide enough to accommodate one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes, and elsewhere along the Karo Drive alignment. Reducing the number of westbound lanes to create an eastbound lane would also be likely to cause queuing along Karo Drive westbound and increase congestion and environmental impacts in this area.
Making Karo Drive two-way would also require additional traffic signal phases and introduce new intersection conflicts. This would decrease the level of service of the route in the westbound direction, as well as decrease the level of service for walking, cycling, bus and general traffic movements in the north-south directions.
Series of short tunnels
This alternative would involve undergrounding State Highway 1 (eastbound and westbound) between the Terrace Tunnel and Basin Reserve along the Karo Drive alignment and beside the existing Arras Tunnel). ‘Lids’ (covered tunnel sections) would be constructed over selected parts of the alignment to maintain the local north-south streets at grade (Abel Smith, Willis, Victoria, Cuba and Taranaki streets), to create green spaces and to improve pedestrian connectivity. Open trenches would be located in between the covered tunnel sections. The open trenches would help to minimise the cost of the undergrounding and reduce the need for ventilation stacks and other infrastructure required in longer tunnels, but would not create a consistent covered area.
Longer, continuous tunnel
This alternative would be a variation on the above, involving longer lids and fewer open trenches to create a continuous cut-and-cover tunnel from Willis St to the Basin Reserve. The space on the tunnel lid between Willis Street and the Basin Reserve would be used to maintain the north-south streets at grade and to create a series of open spaces in between the local streets. Ventilation stacks and control buildings would likely be required to service this longer tunnel.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 54
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis Preliminary investigations of the tunnel alternatives indicated that they would not result in the majority of traffic being removed from Vivian Street without other complementary interventions. This is because the majority (70% to 75%) of traffic on Vivian St is bound for local destinations, rather than passing through to reach destinations elsewhere, and therefore is unlikely to use the eastbound Karo Drive route. However, separating local movements from through-traffic has the potential to improve the performance of the transport network and urban form in this part of Wellington. The investigations also indicated that a large infrastructure-based intervention has the potential to achieve programme outcomes, enhance amenity in Te Aro and create opportunities to divert traffic from the central city and from along the waterfront. However, it is likely to incur high costs, reflecting the complexity of tunnel systems and underground utilities and services. More work would be required to quantify the benefits of these alternatives and consider detailed interdependencies with other programme elements. 10.6. Basin Reserve Area The Basin Reserve is another area of conflict between State Highway 1 east-west movements and local north- south movements.
The LGWM preferred approach for the Basin would respond to a number of design principles including:
. Achieves transport outcomes and addresses conflicting transport movements for all modes . Is sympathetic to the local geography, character and existing street network . Enhances amenity values and the use of the Basin.
LGWM has ruled out the previous Basin Bridge proposal which was rejected by the Board of Inquiry in 2014. Initial analysis suggests that there are other less intrusive options to separate conflicting transport movements and improve flows at the Basin. Some of these alternatives were considered at a high level from an urban design, transport and engineering perspective to understand key risks and feasibility. The alternatives investigated are set out below.
At-grade improvements This alternative would involve a series of at-grade changes including localised widening, the removal or relocation of a limited number of on-street parking bays, the creation of additional traffic lanes, restricting the Ellice Street exit, and giving priority for public transport at traffic signals. The changes would be designed to have minimal land take or other impacts.
Undergrounding of State Highway 1 north of the Basin Reserve This alternative would involve undergrounding of State Highway 1 (two-way) in a cut-and-cover tunnel between Paterson St and Arras Tunnel, north of the Basin Reserve. North-south local movements would continue to operate at-grade.
A cut-and-cover tunnel along the north side of the Basin Reserve would create risks around the re-routing and pumping of the underground Waitangi Stream which runs below the Basin area, from Adelaide Road to the Canal Reserve (the green strip between Cambridge and Kent terraces). A continuous tunnel from Patterson St to Arras Tunnel would effectively act as a ‘dam’ against the stream flow path. This option was therefore not considered feasible.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 55
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis Undergrounding of State Highway 1 south and west of Basin Reserve This alternative would involve undergrounding of State Highway 1 (two-way) in a cut-and-cover tunnel between Paterson St and Arras Tunnel, under Dufferin, Rugby and Sussex streets to the south and west of the Basin Reserve. It makes use of the elevated grounds on the western side of the Basin, which are around seven metres higher than either Cambridge Tce or Adelaide Rd and can therefore accommodate a tunnel above the level of a relocated Waitangi Stream. This option does however require the regrading of Paterson Street from the entrance of the Mt Victoria Tunnel to bring the State Highway below Dufferin St. North-south local movements would continue to operate at-grade, over the State Highway.
This alternative was not considered feasible due to the excessive steepening of Paterson Street that would be required to connect the undergrounded State Highway to Mt Victoria Tunnel.
Extension of Sussex Street over State Highway 1 Grade-separation of State Highway 1 traffic below local traffic near the Arras Tunnel. This involves:
. Extension of Sussex Street for two-way local traffic (including any public transport) to cross over a lowered State Highway by the north-west corner of the Basin Reserve . The relocation of westbound State Highway 1 traffic to the north of the Basin Reserve . The relocation of eastbound State Highway 1 traffic from Vivian Street and Kent Terrace to the Buckle Street alignment and the north of the Basin Reserve (assumes State Highway 1 is undergrounded in both directions through Te Aro).
Pedestrian and cycle movements could either follow the local traffic, over State Highway 1 and along the western side of the Basin Reserve, or cross under State Highway 1, directly connecting the Basin Reserve with Kent and Cambridge Terraces.
The relocation of local southbound movements and westbound state highway movements creates opportunities to traffic-calm the area around the entrances of St Mark’s Church School, Wellington College and Government House. Access to the schools would continue to be provided on Dufferin St with an access lane and bus turning loop.
This alternative (Figure 19) was adopted by LGWM for evaluation as part of the recommended programme of investment. Necessarily there is a level of uncertainty of the final layout at this PBC stage. Alternative options will be investigated in detail at the next stage of the business case. This further work will also consider integration with the wider LGWM programme, the ability to accelerate some improvements for early delivery, and a formal decision-making process.
Engagement with the community will be needed to explore and develop a design that achieves transport outcomes, is sympathetic to the local geography, enhances the use of the Basin, and improves amenity around the reserve.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 56
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis
Figure 19 Indicative layout for the transport system near the Basin Reserve (Artist’s impression of indicative concept below)
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 57
PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Further Analysis 11. FURTHER ANALYSIS While engaging with the Ministry of Transport, further analysis was carried out into how the State Highway 1 corridor could contribute to achieving LGWM objectives within an affordable funding envelope. This work built on the investigations summarised in Section 10.5. A summary of some of the technical documents referenced in this section can be found in Appendix N. The State Highway corridor was considered in three sections (Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, Terrace Tunnel to Basin Reserve, and Mt Victoria Tunnel to Airport). Options were considered for each section and assessed at a high level, with logical combinations considered as connected routes within the context of the wider programme. This initial assessment did not develop firm recommendations; the intent was to indicate whether a reduced level of investment could still be effective in achieving programme outcomes. The investigation assumed that other programme elements were unchanged, including mass transit, Basin grade- separation, road pricing, walking, cycling and public transport improvements. 11.1. State Highway 1 Corridor Ngauranga to Aotea Quay Consideration of the State Highway 1 section between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay focused on the potential Multi-User Ferry Terminal that is being investigated outside of LGWM. In summary, none of the potential access arrangements under consideration by the Multi-User Ferry Terminal were found to be incompatible with the LGWM programme. Widening of State Highway 1 southbound between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay was considered unlikely to be required as part of the LGWM programme without an identified need as part of Multi-User Ferry Terminal planning. 11.2. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro As part of the RPI development several options for this section of State Highway 1 were considered including contraflow using the existing tunnels, a series of short tunnels, and a longer continuous tunnel with varying lengths of covered and open trenches. Further investigation considered the presence/absence of a duplicate Terrace Tunnel, different forms of contraflow operation, relatively lower cost optimisation and enhancement changes, reduced extent of undergrounding to a single intersection, and different methodologies for tunnelling. High level consideration of different tunnelling methodologies highlighted that a different tunnelling approach such as machine excavation (rather than cut and cover or a tunnel boring machine) could be delivered at a reduced cost, with lesser disruption, and over a similar timeframe, if found to be feasible. This analysis highlighted the importance of robust optioneering during detailed investigation phases. 11.3. State Highway 1 corridor through Mt Victoria The RPI assumed widening and duplication in line with previous NZ Transport Agency proposals. Different options considered different ways of utilising additional capacity from an extra tunnel, using the Hataitai bus tunnel, creation of an additional walking and cycling tunnel, and different tunnelling methodologies such as widening the existing tunnel rather than excavating a new tunnel. Widening excavation techniques had several identified potential issues including constructability challenges, reduced resilience outcomes, and lower fire and life safety performance. However, it was identified to potentially represent a lower cost investment. Again, this analysis highlighted the importance of robust optioneering during detailed investigation phases.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 58
PART B3 – Programme Development: Longlist Programme Options PART B3 – PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT This part summarises the process that was followed to iteratively develop and assess programme options through a longlist and shortlist assessment process to arrive at a recommended programme of investment. 12. LONGLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS 12.1. Longlist Programme Development The longlist of programme options was developed within the context of the strategic response, and having regard to feedback from the engagement scenarios. Six packages of interventions (‘elements’) were developed that could potentially be implemented in a standalone manner and progressively combined to address aspects of the strategic approach. These elements were then used to build up longlist of programme options for testing. The six programme packages are set out below. Priority for public transport and active modes in the central city . Improving priority for buses on key routes to improve journey times and reliability . Improving walkability and creating more people-focused spaces in the central city . Creating a network of safe cycleways throughout the central city . Optimising operation of existing infrastructure through ‘Early Improvements’ (including lowering speeds in the central city).
This package reflected the strong support in the engagement scenarios feedback for the types of interventions illustrated in Scenario A, but with higher investment in public transport (excluding large scale infrastructure investment), walking, and cycling. Distributed bus priority / bus lanes . A distributed mass transit service on three core routes in Wellington City . Design of the wider public transport network to complement mass transit . Some infrastructure changes that may be required to support mass transit or manage trade-offs with other parts of the transport network.
Mass Transit focused on a single spine . A high priority mass transit service on a single spine through Wellington City . Design of the wider public transport network to complement mass transit . Significant infrastructure changes that may be required to support mass transit or manage trade- offs with other parts of the transport network. This could include: o Grade separation near the Basin Reserve or on the Taranaki Street corridor o New tunnels including potentially a duplicated Mt Victoria Tunnel or a new tunnel through Mt Cook and/or Mt Albert . The package could enable active mode connections as part of any new tunnels.
Infrastructure to reduce conflict and increase amenity in Te Aro . Relocation of the State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro, potentially into an underground structure, enabling pedestrian and amenity improvements throughout Te Aro.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 59
PART B3 – Programme Development: Longlist Programme Options
Wider network capacity . Depending on the net impacts of other improvements, pricing, and the realisation of any number of future uncertainties, one approach may be to increase the capacity of the wider road network. . This could include: o Reducing congestion at the Basin o Duplicating the Mt Victoria Tunnel and widening Ruahine Street o Duplicating the Terrace Tunnel o Increasing capacity of the Inner City Bypass . Enabling walking and cycling improvements along the waterfront quays, Vivian Street, and in the Lambton and Thorndon areas. Pricing to manage demand . Each programme option would be assessed with or without congestion pricing that would be aimed at managing demand to optimise network performance, such as changes to parking charges and a cordon charge. Programme elements common to all longlist options . A number of other areas for improvement have been identified which would feature to some degree in any preferred programme. These include: . Improved access to the port, once a port programme has been defined . Improved accessibility to/from north of the LGWM area . Improved network operations . Improved resilience of the transport network . Increased focus on use of travel demand management measures to encourage more effective use of the transport network Accounting for future uncertainty Technological change is expected to occur, but the form and timeframe is unknown and largely unpredictable. Any programme will need to adapt to these changes in the medium to long term. In the short term, technological change is not considered a differentiator for selecting a preferred programme.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 60
PART B3 – Programme Development: Longlist Programme Options
12.2. Longlist Programme Options A longlist of 13 programme options was developed using the intervention elements outlined in Section 12.1, as shown in Table 12 below.
Table 12 Longlist Programme Options
Longlist Programme Options Programme Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Priority for PT and active modes X X X X X X X X X X X X X in the central city Distributed bus priority / bus X X lanes Mass Transit focused on a single X X X X X X X X spine Infrastructure to reduce conflict X X X X X X and increase amenity in Te Aro Wider network capacity X X X X* X* Pricing to manage demand X X X X X X
*Mt Victoria Tunnel Duplication, Improvements near the Basin Reserve, and Ruahine St Widening only The longlist of programmes was refined over time. The versions shown above were as assessed during the longlist workshop (see below). 12.3. Longlist Programme Assessment A workshop was held with attendees from the LGWM team, chaired by an independent facilitator. This workshop confirmed the longlist of programme options subject to adding additional options, and qualitatively assessed the longlist options against the SMART Objective KPIs. This assessment used a qualitative 7-point scale as outlined below: 7-Point Scale +3 Major Benefit +2 Moderate Benefit +1 Minor Benefit 0 Neutral -1 Minor Disbenefit -2 Moderate Disbenefit -3 Major Disbenefit
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 61
PART B3 – Programme Development: Longlist Programme Options
Workshop attendees broke into specialised groups, each with assigned KPIs, to assess the programme options using the preliminary scoring as a starting point, and report back on key considerations and differentiators. Results of this assessment process are shown in Table 13. Workshop participants were also invited to comment on any other significant aspects that might impact decision making at a high level, including Key Risks, Urgency, Interdependencies, and Economic and Social impacts. Documentation of this assessment process is shown in Appendix H.
Longlist Programme Options Investment Objective KPI Do- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Min
Amenity Index 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 0 1.5 2
CO2 and particulate 0 0 1 1 2 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 1 2 -1 1 2 emissions
Ratio people: vehicles 0 1 1.5 2 3 2 3 2 3 1.5 2.5 -2 1.5 2.5 entering CBD
Number of pedestrians 0 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 and cyclists
Pedestrian and public 0 1.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 3 1 2.5 3 transport travel times
Cycling infrastructure level 0 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 of service
Network catchment 0 1 2 2 3 2.5 3 2.5 3 3 3 0 2.5 3 walking & public transport
Travel time reliability all 0 0.5 2 1 3 2 3 2.5 3 2.5 3 1.5 2.5 3 modes
Improved safety all modes 0 1 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 3 1 2 2.5
Improved resilience 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2.5 2 2 2 1 1
Urban Development 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 1 2 2.5 Potential
Table 13 Longlist Programme Option Assessment
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 62
PART B3 – Programme Development: Shortlist Programme Options 13. SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS 13.1. Shortlist Programme Development and Options As a result of the assessment described in Section 12.3, a short list of programme options was developed. The workshop participants modified some of the longlist programmes in order to optimise their performance, based on the learnings from the assessment process. This resulted in the shortlist programmes as set out below. A more detailed presentation of the shortlist options is shown in Appendix I. Candidates for shortlist and their variants are shown in Table 14, and can be summarised as: . Programme 3 includes a dispersed investment in bus based public transport across the network . Programme 5 includes a focused investment in a high-quality mass transit route supported by a bus network with lesser priority . Programme 12 includes a step-change in public transport similar to either programme 3 or 5, improved accessibility to the east and south, and reduced severance and conflict in Te Aro . Programme 9 includes a step-change in public transport similar to either programme 3 or 5, improved accessibility to the north, east and south, and reduced severance and conflict in Te Aro.
Table 14 Shortlist Programme Options
Shortlist Programmes Interventions 3 5 12 9 Two dedicated public transport spine routes10 through the CBD - Golden Mile and Waterfront - with high levels of priority and segregation
BRT11 on both CBD public transport spines and on key public transport routes to the north, east, south and west, to support high quality, high frequency, high capacity bus services
High level of public transport priority and service along one of * * the public transport spines from Wellington Station to the Airport via Newtown / Kilbirnie with a lesser level of priority on a supporting BRT network using the secondary public transport spine in the CBD
Improvements to pedestrian access and amenity to and through the central city, and easy access to public transport services
10 Section 10.4.2 summarises the analysis that suggested two public transport spines 11 At this stage of programme development the term ‘BRT’ was used to refer to bus services with a high level of priority.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 63
PART B3 – Programme Development: Shortlist Programme Options Creating safe cycleways throughout the central city connecting to the wider cycle network towards the north, south, east and west
Walking/cycling tunnel parallel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel
Duplication of Mt Victoria Tunnel for motorised vehicles, people walking and people on bikes
Grade separation of the Basin Reserve **
Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with a single eastbound lane
Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with two eastbound lanes
Amenity and cycling improvements on Vivian Street
Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of State Highway 1 on and off-ramps, and an additional southbound lane on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay
Consider road pricing mechanism(s) to manage private vehicle demand and promote alternative modes
Early Improvements – Suite of geographically packaged improvements that can be implemented in the short term *Programmes 12 and 9 included a step change in public transport (Similar to programme 3 or 5) **If mass transit route uses Kent/Cambridge Terraces instead of Taranaki Street
All short list programmes also included: . Improving priority for buses on key routes, improving walkability and creating more people- focused spaces in the central city, and creating a network of safe cycleways throughout the central city . Early Improvements - optimising operation of existing infrastructure, including lowering speeds in the central city . Improving access to the port, once a port programme has been defined . Improving accessibility to/from the northern suburbs and the wider region in the northern part of the LGWM programme area . Improving network operations . Improving resilience of the transport network . More use of travel demand management measures to encourage more effective use of the transport network.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 64
PART B3 – Programme Development: Shortlist Programme Options
The following figure shows how the short list programmes might look if implemented.
Programme 3 Legend Programme 5 Walking Cycling Public Transport Road
Create Distributed Bus Mass Transit Network
Clearways on Vivian Street, optimise Karo/Vivian corridors Suite of 17 early improvements packages including At-grade improvements speed limit reviews to Basin Reserve
Programme 12 Programme 9
Figure 20 Shortlist programme option maps
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 65
PART B3 – Programme Development: Shortlist Programme Options 13.2. Shortlist Programme Assessment The shortlist options were qualitatively assessed against the SMART Objective KPIs at a workshop with attendees from the LGWM team. This assessment used a qualitative 7 point scale as below: 7-Point Scale +3 Major Benefit +2 Moderate Benefit +1 Minor Benefit 0 Neutral -1 Minor Disbenefit -2 Moderate Disbenefit -3 Major Disbenefit Workshop attendees broke into specialised groups each with assigned KPIs to assess programme options using the preliminary scoring as a starting point, and report back on key considerations and differentiators. The results of this assessment process are shown in Table 15 (note that the KPIs used at this workshop refined versions of those used at the longlist assessment stage). Workshop participants were also invited to comment on any other significant aspects that might impact decision making, including Key Risks, Urgency, Interdependencies, and Economic and Social impacts. Documentation of this assessment process is shown in Appendix I.
Table 15 Shortlist Programme Assessment against KPIs
Table 15 also shows an indicative capital cost range for the programmes in 2018 dollars. It should be noted that these cost estimates are indicative only and reflect the uncertainty around how each intervention might look when actually implemented.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 66
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMME Following the assessment of the short list, Programme 5 was assessed by workshop attendees to be superior to the other options because it performed well against both the KPIs and strategic objectives at a lesser cost than Programme 9 and 12. Subsequent to this assessment LGWM decided that Programme 9 should be chosen as the recommended programme as it performed better than Programme 5 against the amenity index, network catchment, travel time variability, resilience and potential for urban development KPIs. Following this decision, a Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI) was developed as a variant of Programme 9. The key components of the RPI are summarised in Section 14.2 and described in more detail in Section 14.3. The RPI is an integrated, whole-of-system programme that includes a comprehensive range of investments across the full range of transport modes. Given the scale of the RPI, it is expected to take at least 15 years to fully implement, depending on funding availability. 14.1. Recommended Programme Development Table 16 shows how the RPI was developed from the components of the shortlist programmes, as a variant of programme 9.
Table 16 Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI) description
Shortlist Programmes Interventions RPI (repeated for comparison) 3 5 12 9 Two dedicated public transport spine routes through the CBD - Golden Mile and Waterfront - with high levels of priority and segregation Dispersed bus priority Mass transit supported by dispersed bus priority Improvements to pedestrian access and amenity to and through the central city, and easy access to public transport services Creating safe cycleways throughout the central city connecting to the wider cycle network towards the north, south, east and west Walking/cycling tunnel parallel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel
Duplication of Mt Victoria Tunnel for motorised vehicles, people walking and people on bikes Grade separation of the Basin Reserve Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with a single eastbound lane
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 67
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with two eastbound lanes Amenity improvements on Vivian Street Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of State Highway 1 on and off-ramps, and an additional southbound lane on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay
Road pricing mechanism(s) to manage private vehicle demand and promote alternative modes Carefully planned transport system transformation Urban development
14.2. Recommended Programme of Investment Summary High-quality walking and cycling so our streets are safer and better places for people . A walkable city - Better walking priority and facilities . Connected cycleways - Creating a connected and safe cycling network Better public transport with high-capacity mass transit so people have more travel choices, and buses and trains are more reliable and attractive . Public transport to the north - Better connections to the north . Public transport to/through the city - High priority access to and through Wellington including a dual spine . Mass Transit from Station to Airport supporting urban regeneration and a step change in service quality Urban development land use changes integrated with transport, so people have better travel options where they live and work . Urban development - Create accessible neighbourhoods Smarter transport network with road pricing so people and goods make better use of our transport system without more cars . Smarter transport system - Technology, integrated operations, and demand management (excluding pricing) . Smarter pricing - Changing travel behaviour by charging more to drive into the city at peak times Multimodal State Highway improvements to relocate cars out of the central city and enable better public transport, walking and cycling, and so people can get to key destinations, such as the hospital and airport, more reliably . Improving the Basin - Reducing conflict between movements and modes . Better access to the East - Extra Mt Victoria tunnel and Ruahine Street widening . Reclaiming Te Aro - Shifting State Highway 1 off Vivian St into a tunnel unlocking development potential . More reliable access from the North - Ngauranga to Aotea Quay widening and Second Terrace Tunnel
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 68
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.3. Recommended Programme Detail The following sections set out the components of the RPI in more detail. 14.3.1. A Walkable City . Pedestrian accessibility improvements – including widened footpaths, improved crossings and priority, shelter, signage and lighting across the central city . Setting safer speeds for vehicles in the central city and on State Highway 1 east of Mount Victoria . Safe crossing of State Highway 1 on Cobham Drive . Larger scale pedestrian improvements, to support a high quality public realm on key pedestrian routes within the central city.
Rationale Walking is the most efficient mode of travel for short distances, contributing to the economic vitality of central city streets and delivering environmental and health benefits. Continued population growth in Te Aro and other areas within walking distance of the Wellington CBD needs to be supported by better pedestrian facilities and priority. Walking is also the end-of-journey mode for most people travelling by public transport and private vehicle from the wider region to the CBD for work, shopping and leisure. LGWM seeks to ensure the central city continues to be safe and attractive for people through the provision of better public spaces. RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of measures to improve walkability and create more people-focused spaces in the central city: Early improvements to pedestrian safety, amenity and accessibility in the central city These include works such a widening footpaths in areas of high demand and poor provision; adding crossing facilities where they are missing; reducing the waiting times and/or increasing the ‘green’ time for pedestrians at key crossings; installing pedestrian countdown displays at selected signalised intersections; providing shelters where building verandas are missing; improving signage, especially to key tourist destinations; and improving lighting along off-street walkways to improve personal safety. Safer speeds As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes a review of the speed limits on central city streets and on the State Highway east of Mount Victoria tunnel. Lower traffic speeds help to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians and makes this mode of transport more attractive to a wide range of people. In conjunction with the review of speed limits on the State Highway east of Mount Victoria, the RPI includes a formal crossing facility for pedestrians and cyclists across Cobham Drive. This is expected to help address the safety concerns in this part of the network and improve accessibility to the ASB Sports Centre and community facilities in Kilbirnie. Public space improvements Changes to the street network, such as the introduction of dedicated lanes for public transport and the introduction of mass transit, open up opportunities to re-think the design of key streets and public spaces. The RPI includes improvements to the pedestrian environment (e.g. paving, seating and planting) as part of these wider works. Other parts of the pedestrian network can be improved independently of improvements to the wider transport network. Examples of such works include improvements to Dixon Street to support regeneration Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 69
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
in this area. Other areas which could be refreshed to improve pedestrian amenity include Cuba Street, Stout Street, Allen and Blair Streets, Mercer Street and The Terrace. These works would help improve the amenity of areas with high levels of pedestrian movements and street-level businesses. 14.3.2. Connected Cycleways . Implement cycleways as part of corridor improvements on Featherston Street, Thorndon Quay, Courtenay Place/Dixon Street, Taranaki Street, Willis Street, Victoria Street . Setting safer speeds for vehicles in the central city and on State Highway 1 . Implement cycleways as part of public transport focused corridor improvements on Kent and Cambridge Terraces, and Adelaide Road.
Rationale Cycling has become more popular as a mode of transport in the Wellington region. This has been helped by the advent of electric bikes which ease the challenges of Wellington’s hilly topography. There are however many people who would like to cycle but do not feel safe cycling on the current road network. To give everyone the option to cycle if they wish to, a network of safe and connected cycle routes is needed. Cycling has the potential to replace a number of vehicle journeys, thus helping to relieve congestion. It also delivers environmental and health benefits. RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of measures to improve provisions for cycling, with a focus in the central city: Safer speeds As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes review of the speed limits on central city streets and on the State Highway east of Mount Victoria tunnel. Lower traffic speeds help to reduce the risk of injuries to cyclists and makes this mode of transport more attractive to a wide range of people. Early improvements creating a network of safe cycleways The RPI includes cycleways on a number of central city streets such as Thorndon Quay, Taranaki, Featherston, Victoria, Willis and Dixon Streets, Kent and Cambridge Terraces, and Courtenay Place. The design of these facilities will be developed with the affected communities in the next phase of the programme. Connection to the east A high quality cycleway, between the Basin Reserve and Evans Bay Parade, including a new Mount Victoria tunnel. This will provide the eastern suburbs with a more pleasant, attractive and safe way of reaching the CBD while reducing conflicts with pedestrians. Connection to the south In conjunction with the investment in high quality public transport along Adelaide Road, LGWM anticipates provision of a high quality cycling facility between John Street and the Basin Reserve. This will support the growth of safer cycle travel between the southern suburbs and the central city. Vivian Street improvements Changes to the central city bypass route could create opportunities to re-think the design and role of Vivian Street. If so, creating a new east-west cycling connection across Te Aro as part of these wider changes will be an option.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 70
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.3.3. Better Public Transport Connections to the North . Increased bus priority on Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay . Increased rail network capacity and service frequencies (to be progressed outside LGWM) . Higher frequencies and service levels for bus routes to northern suburbs . Integrated ticketing (to be progressed outside LGWM).
Rationale Current and projected growth in demand for travel to the central city is greatest from the north. The public transport network (rail lines and bus routes) that serve these existing and new journeys to and from the north will require increases in capacity to improve service quality and reliability. Without investment in these networks, public transport could become less attractive, reducing the number of viable travel choices for people to access central Wellington and its regional destinations. This has the potential to impact Wellington’s economic performance and competitiveness, as well as affecting the ability to support social opportunities. The transport networks towards the north of the central city are at capacity during peak times for both road and rail-based modes. This means that even small disruption events have wide reaching effects across multiple modes with regional consequences. Increased public transport capacity to the north can therefore significantly improve the resilience of Wellington’s transport network. RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of measures to improve public transport capacity and priority to the north of the central city: Early improvements to bus priority As part of early improvements, trialling bus priority enhancements on Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road have the potential to reduce delays from conflicts with general traffic on this corridor. This will need to be designed to integrate with the trial of cycling facilities and improved pedestrian crossing opportunities. Bus priorities on Thorndon Quay, Hutt Road, and other main routes to northern suburbs Following the early improvements trial, a more permanent configuration for Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay and service improvements will respond to changes in transport system demands that will result from other programme elements. Increased rail network capacity and service frequencies (progressed outside LGWM) Work to provide increased capacity and service frequencies on the Hutt Valley/Wairarapa, Kapiti Coast, and Johnsonville rail lines that connect Wellington City to the wider region is currently being progressed by Greater Wellington Regional Council. These infrastructure changes include double tracking, turn back facilities, additional crossovers and connections at Wellington Station, overhead power supply upgrades, freight loops and signalling changes. Together with changes to services and timetabling, this will help to create a more reliable ‘turn up and go’ public transport service across the busiest parts of the network. Integrated ticketing (progressed outside LGWM) Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Transport Agency are involved in a national rollout of an advanced integrated ticketing system across all public transport networks. This has the potential to make the overall network more attractive and seamless, by speeding up boarding and making transfers between different public transport modes and services easier. 14.3.4. Better Public Transport Priority To and Through the Central City . Bus priority enhancements on Kent/Cambridge Terraces, Adelaide Road, Taranaki Street, Kilbirnie Crescent, Bowen Street, Hamilton Road, Victoria Street, Willis Street, and along the Golden Mile Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 71
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
. Trial removal of general traffic from sections of Willis Street, Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place . Providing high quality and high frequency bus services along higher priority core public transport corridors into and out of the city.
Rationale To cater for growth, the transport system needs to move more people with fewer vehicles coming into the central city. The main way to achieve this for longer distance journeys will be through increased numbers of people travelling by public transport. This step change in public transport will require a significant increase in public transport capacity. To ensure that public transport provides an attractive travel choice, services will need to be more reliable and this will require increased priority on congested parts of the network, particularly in the central city. RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of public transport priority measures in and around the central city: Early improvements by enhancing bus priority As part of early improvements, bus priority enhancements along the Golden Mile could support the improvements already introduced as part of the new Wellington City bus network. Other corridors where bus priority enhancements have been identified to help reduce the delays that buses experience include Kent and Cambridge Terraces, Adelaide Road, Taranaki Street, Kilbirnie Crescent, Bowen Street, Hamilton Road, Willis Street, and Victoria Street. These priority enhancements encompass a range of interventions including signal timing and detection changes, increased lengths and hours of operation of bus lanes, and rationalisation of bus stops. In addition, there are approximately 9 bus stops on the core routes of the new bus network that do not meet minimum design standards for length, meaning that buses cannot stop adjacent to the kerb. Improving these stops could address issues related to traffic flows, potential safety issues, and providing an effective service for mobility impaired users. In order to improve the flow of buses it is proposed to trial further restrictions on general traffic in sections of Willis Street, Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. This measure could also improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. A dual public transport spine through the central city The new Wellington City bus network is intended to improve bus reliability along the Golden Mile by rationalising services and utilising higher capacity vehicles. As bus frequencies increase to accommodate growing demand, travel time reliability will deteriorate due to capacity constraints on the Golden Mile. Therefore, a second public transport spine through the central city is recommended to increase public transport capacity to support growth, and to further improve service reliability. The proposed route for this second spine is along the waterfront quays and Taranaki Street. A dual spine will enable mass transit to be introduced on the waterfront route (as discussed in Section 14.3.5). Providing high quality and high frequency bus services To maintain reliable services, the core bus routes outside of the Golden Mile will also require additional bus priority as ridership grows and service frequency increases. In addition, the creation of a mass transit route will require the wider bus network to be reconfigured to provide effective connections between the central city and other parts of Wellington.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 72
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
The core corridors currently being considered for improvements to provide high priority connections include Hutt Road, Thorndon Quay, Glenmore Street, Bowen Street, Chaytor Street, Brooklyn Road, Willis Street, Victoria Street, Courtenay Place, Elizabeth Street, Brougham Street, Pirie Street, Waitoa Road, Moxham Avenue, Kilbirnie Crescent, Rongotai Road, Adelaide Road, Riddiford Street, and Constable Street. 14.3.5. Mass Transit Supporting Urban Regeneration . Provide high-capacity, high-quality, high-frequency public transport (using either light rail (LRT) or a technology with similar characteristics) from Wellington Railway Station along the waterfront quays, Taranaki Street, and Adelaide Road to the Hospital, Newtown and Airport as part of the wider public transport network.
Rationale Mass transit enables high passenger volumes to be carried down defined corridors in an efficient and practical way. In the Wellington context, this will improve both access to destinations in the CBD and journeys for longer regional trips. To achieve this will require the mass transit services to be well integrated with the heavy rail and bus networks, including the provision of quality interchanges. Mass transit also has the potential to encourage more intensive land use development along its route. The degree to which this is achieved depends on a variety of factors such as land use zoning and other policies, commercial and residential demand in the locations concerned, and the perceived permanence and quality of the mass transit route, the service provided, and the stations. To support the goal of having a vibrant, prosperous and compact city, the LGWM programme aims to encourage urban intensification, including both residential and workplace growth, within easy reach of the central city. Intensification along mass transit routes is desirable from a transport perspective because it allows growth in travel demand to be accommodated by public transport rather than driving, reducing congestion and emissions. The corridor to the south of the CBD, from Te Aro to Newtown, has been identified as having the greatest potential for this growth, with less but still notable potential through Kilbirnie and in Miramar. A mass transit route has the potential to support intensification and development along this corridor, reducing the need to travel long distances. RPI proposals The RPI includes a mass transit route for Wellington, providing: A high-quality, high-frequency mass transit route from Wellington Railway Station to the Hospital, Newtown and Airport as part of the wider public transport network A central focus of the RPI is investment in mass transit, to improve public transport mode share and encourage urban development in the growth areas to the south of the central city. As summarised in Section 10.4, LGWM has a preference for a mass transit system with the characteristics of light rail. It will include high frequency services (every 10 mins or less), modern high capacity (e.g. articulated) electric vehicles with superior ride quality, fast loading and unloading, dedicated lanes with signal priority, and high quality stations with level boarding. This will enable a high quality public transport corridor, from Wellington Railway Station along the waterfront quays, Taranaki Street, and Adelaide Road to Newtown, and extending to Kilbirnie, Miramar and the Airport via a new Mount Albert tunnel. Supporting changes to land use and policy settings will be needed to enable urban development and support mass transit investment (as discussed further in Section 10.1). Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 73
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.3.6. Urban Development Land Use Changes Integrated with Transport . Enable intensification along mass transit corridors through District Plan changes and new regulatory tools . Possible market interventions such as amalgamation of parcels through an urban development agency in Te Aro, Adelaide Road, and parts of Newtown, Kilbirnie and Miramar.
Rationale The CBD, Te Aro, Adelaide Road and Newtown are expected to be amongst the fastest growing neighbourhoods in the city and region over the next 30 years. Residential intensification in these areas is desirable because it places residents near their place of employment, education, shopping and leisure. This reduces the need to travel and makes walking, cycling and public transport viable alternatives to travel by car. Such intensification is already happening, albeit at a relatively slow pace. Many factors hinder the rate of development including regulatory restrictions, fragmented land ownership and the lack of certainty for developers and lenders. Mass transit investment can act as a catalyst for increased intensification, but it requires a supportive land use planning and regulatory environment. At the same time, more intensive development along the mass transit corridor is desirable to ensure the city receives the most benefit from the mass transit investment. In the absence of such land use changes in the growth corridor(s), it is unlikely that high levels of investment in transport infrastructure would be justified. RPI proposals The RPI includes the following interventions to facilitate urban development integrated with transport investment: District Plan changes to enable intensification along mass transit corridors A full review of the Wellington City District Plan is expected to start shortly. LGWM recommends that the Wellington City Council continues to integrate future land use with the future location of mass transit routes when considering the settings that guide residential and employment intensity. For examples, this could mean relaxing the maximum building height and site coverage to enable greater housing density and urban development to be built within walking distance of mass transit stops.
Additional regulatory tools In order to speed up private investment (and enabling development along mass transit routes), we recommend that Wellington City Council continues to work with central government on new or extended regulatory tools. For example, Special Housing Areas or similar precinct masterplan frameworks that have been helpful in providing investment confidence and greater certainty in the regulatory process.
Possible market interventions When development is unlikely to be delivered by the private market, central government and the City Council may need to intervene directly, for example to amalgamate small parcels that are in separate ownerships and not economical to redevelop individually. This could be facilitated by an urban development agency/authority, where such entities have been helpful internationally in urban regeneration and development, especially when leveraging off infrastructure investment.
Value capture mechanisms Investment in transport and amenity improvements by central and local government is likely to lead to benefits such as increases in value for those properties located nearby. It may be possible to capture some
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 74
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
of this windfall uplift in land values to fund part of the RPI. We recommend that the City Council works with central government to develop mechanisms enabling appropriate value capture.
Safer speeds As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes a review of the speed limits on central city streets. Lower traffic speeds have the potential to support improved amenity and urban realm, encouraging more place-based function of the road corridor such as retail and leisure activity. 14.3.7. Smarter Transport System . Applying the Mobility as a Service platform to the Wellington context . Optimisation and minor safety and operational improvements including the Golden Mile, Cobham Drive, the Terrace, Tinakori Road, and the waterfront quays . Enhancement of existing travel demand management programmes . Transition to an integrated transport network operating system . Design of transport system transformation - travel demand management measures and temporary infrastructure and services to manage disruption and ensure a smooth transition to the future transport system e.g. park and ride facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, public transport subsidies, road network changes and travel behaviour change.
Rationale Technological advances, in particular the increased use of smartphones and other technologies, is already enhancing the ability of transport users to make more efficient use of the transport system. This trend is likely to continue and accelerate over the next few years. These developments will provide the opportunity to maximise the return on investment in the transport system by making better use of existing and future network assets. They also make the overall system more flexible and adaptable in responding to unforeseen changes. In conjunction with these technological advances, enhanced integrated management of the transport system will make the system more user friendly (for example, in providing up to date travel information and advice), and more resilient in dealing with disruption such as weather events. Use of smart technology will be particularly important in managing the implementation of the RPI, for example in directing traffic away from areas of construction disruption. Letting technology enabled transport disruption happen without strategic oversight and direction poses a risk. For example, the increasing permeation of ride-hailing in many cities has led to a decrease in public transport patronage and increased vehicle kilometres travelled. RPI proposals The RPI includes the following improvements: Early improvements towards a smarter transport network These early improvements include applying the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform that is being nationally developed to the Wellington context. For example, tailoring MaaS to use the existing smart parking system. The early improvements also include optimisation and minor safety and operations improvements on the Golden Mile, Cobham Drive, the Terrace, Tinakori Road, and the waterfront quays. The RPI also includes increased resource allocation for travel demand management programmes such as school travel planning and e-bike uptake encouragement.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 75
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Transition to an integrated transport network operating system The current transport system includes a number of networks that are largely operated independently such as the local street network and the rail network. There is an opportunity to better integrate these operations in order for the transport system to work towards shared outcomes. What this might look like in reality is currently being considered nationally, and Wellington would particularly benefit from such an operational approach given that the different transport networks already have complex overlaps (e.g. diverting traffic around a rail level crossing in real time). The integration of new transport components from the RPI into such an operating system, such as the mass transit service, would also help to deliver optimised returns on investment. Design of transport system transformation All projects should include appropriate measures to minimise disruption during construction and to manage a smooth transition for people using the transport system on a day to day basis. For the LGWM RPI, designing and managing the transition is significant enough to be recognised as a key component of the programme itself. This is because central Wellington’s transport system: . Is complex and its elements are highly interdependent . Operates close to, at or over capacity at peak times . Is likely to undergo a series of major changes simultaneously (e.g. mass transit construction, Golden Mile changes, Te Aro changes, and shared streets). Design of transport system transformation will include a suite of travel demand management measures and temporary infrastructure and services to create a smooth transition to the future transport system e.g. park and ride facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, public transport subsidies, road network changes, and travel behaviour change. Design of transport system transformation is highly interdependent with the wider programme as some elements of the RPI may need to be brought forward or sequenced to manage the system change. For this reason the design of transport system transformation needs investigation in parallel with the development of other programme components.
14.3.8. Smarter Pricing . A suite of travel demand management measures including greater use of pricing mechanisms, such as changes to parking charges and the introduction of congestion charging.
Rationale Pricing mechanisms are already used in managing transport demand for the use of Wellington’s transport system, particularly at busy times. These mechanisms include on-street parking charges and subsidised public transport fares. Demand management has a key role to play in ensuring the RPI achieves optimal results in performing against the investment objectives. For example, congestion charging would help to reduce congestion to efficient levels on strategic road corridors to, from and through the central city. It would also be used to encourage use of more space-efficient modes and reduce the impact of traffic flows on sensitive areas in the city, such as the waterfront.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 76
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
RPI proposals The RPI includes: Travel demand management and pricing As part of the suite of travel demand management measures there is an opportunity to better manage demand through pricing mechanisms. The RPI includes congestion pricing. This will include one or a number of tools that charge motorists to drive into the central city, such as a central city cordon charge or parking levies. There are several ways in which pricing mechanisms could operate. It could vary temporally, have multiple staggered cordons, or have exemptions for certain user groups. As such, there is a need to further investigate pricing to inform any legislative change. The RPI has assumed a cordon charge for entering the central city in the order of $5 to $10 that is focused on busy times. This modelling has indicated that pricing will significantly contribute towards achieving the objectives of LGWM. Pricing has the potential to result in social equity issues, particularly when travel choice is limited. The provision of improved public transport alternatives, as proposed in the RPI, is therefore an important pre- requisite to the introduction of any new pricing schemes. To support the introduction of increased use of pricing mechanisms, other demand management tools that will be considered include providing high occupancy vehicles lanes, or increased priority for non-car modes. 14.3.9. More Reliable Access from the North . Optimisation and minor safety improvements on State Highway 1 . Southbound widening of State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay (potentially for buses, high occupancy vehicles and/or freight vehicles) . Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, enabling two southbound lanes and provision of shoulder areas within the tunnels, and potentially including a cycling connection between The Terrace and Willis Street.
Rationale The State Highway network provides access for people and goods to the central city, as well as other key destinations such as the port, hospital, and airport. Access to these destinations is complex and would substantially change as key elements of the RPI are implemented. For example, the waterfront quays route will not be able to cater for current volumes of general traffic once the dual public transport spine is in place. It will be difficult to accommodate these major road capacity reductions – even with congestion charging – without impacting negatively on travel time reliability for peak time journeys to the key regional destinations. This will be particularly so during transition to the new system as key RPI elements are constructed. The network operates at capacity in some locations during peak times, resulting in unreliable journey times and use of less suitable local streets for longer distance movement. Growth will exacerbate these issues. Creating an improved bypass route (in conjunction with improved walking, cycling and public transport options) will enable use of stronger demand management measures to reduce the number of vehicles using less suitable local streets. Improving the resilience of the land transport system through the central city has the potential to speed up reconnection of key recovery centres including the airport, hospital, and port, and the wider region following a large natural hazard event. Sections of State Highway 1 would play a key role in this as some local roads have the potential to be disrupted due to the risk of adjacent buildings collapsing.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 77
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
RPI proposals The RPI includes the following improvements: Early improvements on State Highway 1 This includes a selection of optimisation and minor safety improvements to State Highway 1, particularly focused on areas of interface with local streets or sensitive adjacent land uses. Areas for consideration include near the Aotea Quay off-ramp, the Terrace Tunnel approaches, Karo Drive, Wellington Road, Cobham Drive, and Tinakori Road and the Terrace off-ramps. Southbound widening of State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay Widening of State Highway 1 southbound through the addition of a fourth lane between the Ngauranga Interchange merge and the Aotea Quay off-ramp could be tailored to deliver a variety of benefits. It could be allocated to high-occupancy vehicles and/or buses to support a direction of moving more people with fewer vehicles. It could be allocated to freight only movements to improve access to the port and any new multi-user ferry terminal. As such, further investigation of this item would need to consider the interdependencies outside of LGWM as well as the strategic approach and objectives of LGWM. Duplication/widening of the Terrace Tunnel Duplicating the Terrace Tunnel has the potential to support increased capacity of the State Highway 1 corridor, which can work as part of the wider programme to achieve a variety of outcomes, including shifting through-traffic away from central city streets and maintaining reliable access to key regional destinations. A second tunnel will create the potential to have shoulder widths within the tunnels, reducing the effects of breakdowns and other minor disruptions, as well as the potential to create a cycling connection between Willis Street and The Terrace. 14.3.10. Reclaiming Te Aro . Short-term improvements including restricted parking on Vivian Street and optimisation of Vivian Street and Karo Drive . Undergrounding of the State Highway at Karo Drive to create a transformational green space, urban development opportunities and removing through traffic from Vivian Street.
Rationale Vivian Street is an unusual State Highway in that it connects to and looks much like the rest of the local street network. It is used and crossed by high numbers of private vehicles, buses, people walking, and people on bikes. The priority given to its east-west flow over north-south flows at traffic signals can lead to conflicts. This is particularly noticeable during peak periods where the number of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport passengers and local vehicles crossing the State Highway corridor can significantly exceed those travelling along it, leading to delays to many users. These conflicts are duplicated along Karo Drive, the westbound counterpart to Vivian Street. The State Highway provides regional access to the airport and the hospital, and is a key route for vehicles by- passing the CBD. Maintaining reliable traffic flows along the State Highway network is therefore important. Reducing conflicts between local and regional traffic, and generally lowering the level of vehicular traffic on central city streets has the potential to increase the attractiveness of Te Aro and stimulate regeneration in and around the central city.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 78
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
RPI proposals The RPI includes the following interventions to improve Te Aro: Early improvements to optimise Vivian Street and Karo Drive This includes restricting parking along Vivian Street and changes to traffic signals and lane allocation along Karo Drive to ease movements both on the State Highway and on local north-south streets. Reconfiguration of State Highway 1 through Te Aro This investment would enable eastbound State Highway through traffic to be removed from Vivian Street and relocated to a tunnel running alongside Karo Drive. Karo Drive itself would also be undergrounded and the surface over both tunnels used for local movements and to create a series of new open spaces. This would help separate through traffic from the local road network, reducing conflicts. Access and egress between the local network and State Highway 1 requires more work to get the best balance of benefits between attracting traffic away from the central city streets, improving amenity along Vivian St and Karo Drive, facilitating access to regional destinations and enabling mass transit along Taranaki Street. The one-way use of Vivian will need to be reviewed as part of the wider network redesign. These changes would improve the amenity in Te Aro and attract further urban development in the area. They would also facilitate local north-south movements, separated from east-west State Highway movements. 14.3.11. Improving the Basin . A short-term package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all modes . Basin Reserve grade separation between north-south movements and east-west movements with a short bridge extension to Sussex Street (over State Highway 1).
Rationale The Basin Reserve area is home to an important sports facility and reserve, to a number of schools and colleges, and to buildings and features of heritage and cultural importance. The area is physically constrained, accommodating the State Highway, main arterial roads, public transport services as well as walking and cycling routes from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods. The Basin Reserve area sits at the confluence of the main transport corridors from the southern and eastern suburbs to the central city. These corridors provide the main access routes to the Wellington Regional Hospital and the airport. The current road layout at the Basin results in conflicts between these transport movements. Reducing the conflicts between competing movements around the Basin would help provide more reliable access for all modes of travel. RPI proposals The RPI includes improvements to the transport network in the vicinity of the Basin Reserve: Early improvements at-grade to improve reliable access for all modes These improvements include localised widening and the removal or relocation of a limited number of on- street parking bays to create four continuous traffic lanes between Kent Terrace and Paterson Street (two eastbound to Mt Victoria tunnel and two southbound) and between Paterson Street and Adelaide Road (two southbound to Adelaide Rd and two westbound). They may also include ‘queue-jump’ facilities for public transport at traffic signals.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 79
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
These changes are minor and low cost. They are designed to have minimal impacts on the Basin Reserve and adjoining properties. They are expected to provide value for money and help relieve pressure around the Basin in the short term but are not expected to provide a long-term solution. Grade Separation ‘Grade separation’ (whereby one flow of traffic passes either over or under another) would significantly reduce conflicts between the east-west State Highway movements and north-south local road movements (the latter includes substantial bus movements). Safe and more convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists would also be accommodated as part of a design. Providing easy access to the local schools would also be a priority. There are a number of possible design configurations for grade separation at the Basin. The LGWM preference is for an approach that uses the natural topography of the Basin to achieve a sympathetic design that minimises the extent of any structures required. LGWM has identified a possible approach that would see the extension to Sussex Street at its current level (over a lowered State Highway 1) with an at- grade signalised junction where the SH1 eastbound exit meets Sussex Street. Close collaboration with LGWM stakeholders would be needed at the next stage of the programme to refine this approach. This would consider a number of issues, such as walking and cycling access to and around the Basin. It would also seek to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on property, heritage and cultural values, and improve the function of the Basin Reserve and the character of the surrounding area. 14.3.12. Better Access to the East . Extra Mount Victoria tunnel, including new dedicated walking and cycling facilities, and widening of Ruahine Street and Wellington Road to improve access for bus/high occupancy vehicles, and dedicated walking and cycling facilities.
Rationale Although the existing Mt Victoria tunnel includes a walking and cycling connection, it is of poor quality due to its sub-standard width and proximity to vehicles, resulting in noise and air quality pollution issues and conflict between users. A new facility could encourage more people to walk and cycle between the eastern suburbs and the central city. The Mt Victoria tunnel operates at or near capacity for much of the day. It acts as a gate that restricts the number of vehicles entering the central city from the east during peak times. It also operates, in conjunction with the transport network around the Basin Reserve, to meter the amount of traffic that is released from the central city towards the east. This function results in queuing traffic, creating unreliable journeys to the regionally significant destinations of the central city and the airport, and causing some traffic to divert along less suitable routes such as around the bays or through Newtown. This issue will become more critical as the available capacity on these other routes is increasingly prioritised away from cars to other modes, including mass transit. An additional Mt Victoria tunnel will enable the transport system to cater for growth and improve journey reliability on this corridor. To align with the LGWM strategic approach of moving more people without more vehicles, the additional capacity would need to be managed to give priority to walking, cycling, public transport, and high occupancy vehicles, and reduce traffic on alternative routes, such as Oriental/Evans Bay Parade and Constable Street in Newtown. This could increase the person-carrying capacity of the corridor while minimising the increase in vehicles.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 80
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
An additional tunnel will also improve the resilience of the land transport system by creating the potential to more quickly reconnect the key recovery centres of the airport, hospital, port, and wider region following a large natural hazard event. Sections of State Highway 1 would play a key role in this as some local roads have the potential to be disrupted due to the risks associated with adjacent buildings and slopes. RPI proposals The RPI includes improving access to the east of the central city: Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and Widening Ruahine Street – Wellington Road An extra Mt Victoria tunnel with a new dedicated and separated walking and cycling connection; and widened Ruahine Street and Wellington Road with new walking and cycling facilities, to create a higher quality and more reliable connection for all modes. Allocating the additional lane capacity to public transport and/or high occupancy vehicles can support a demand management approach that enables an increase in the throughput of people without significantly increasing the number of vehicle movements. 14.4. Whole of Network Solution The RPI has been developed as an integrated whole-of-network solution as shown in Figure 21. This demonstrates a need for a mix of activities in order to create an optimised programme. Success relies on each component being delivered in an appropriate sequence. A lack of integrated implementation, meaning that some elements of the integrated programme are put on hold, may result in lower benefits or poor value for money.
Safer and more Better access to the Encourage attractive walking East through traffic Encourage and cycling Improving the Basin to relocate mode shift More reliable and Reclaiming Te Aro away from the to walking, attractive public More reliable access central city and cycling, and transport form the north other sensitiv e public transport Integrated land use locations and public transport
Walking improvements Manage the Moving Enable mode shift Connected cycleways Technology network Better PT to the north to limit increases more with improvements Travel demand Dual spine through city in general traffic to walking, cycling management people with Mass transit station to and operate the and public Smarter pricing fewer transport airport network safely infrastructure, and and efficiently Land use & planning vehicles land use policies changes
On-street parking Reduce road CBD Create space Cycleways through central city Hutt Road dedicated/ Main routes to the central city Golden Mile for general traffic priority routes in the central city and including north Waterfront Quays & to support key Waterfront and Golden Mile Evans Bay along dedicated/ changes priority routes Mass transit route station-to-airport Newtown
Figure 21 RPI as a whole-of-network solution
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 81
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.5. Recommended Programme of Investment Sequencing Much of the programme will take several years to investigate, design, and consent, and then several years to construct, so making sure that the programme is delivered to minimise risks and at the same time bring about early and long-lasting benefits is essential. Careful staging and sequencing of the programme delivery is needed to manage a number of these critical risks including failure to deliver key programme elements, cost and time escalations, unacceptable social and economic impacts, failure to realise the programme benefits and loss of social licence. This will require an ongoing process of testing and revaluation as the programme moves forward, which will need to balance a range of strategic and pragmatic considerations such as: . Alignment with the LGWM programme principles and objectives . Actual changes in population and employment, and updated forecasts . Value for money (right things, right way, right time, right price) . Enable and facilitate customer behaviour change and positive experiences of the system as the RPI is implemented - take people on the journey and help to change to new ways of moving . Manage the system disruption to the communities of Wellington over the life of the construction and delivery process . Programme constraints such as market capacity to deliver, consenting and approvals processes and social and environmental impacts. For example, how much capacity the construction industry has to deliver at any one time . Work within the critical interdependencies of the programme elements. LGWM has had to carefully consider how these various factors are balanced. For example, sequencing public transport improvements to the dual spines through the city so that they do not occur simultaneously, balancing the desirability of implementing public transport improvements as soon as possible against avoiding unacceptable disruption of the transport system. Based on critical interdependencies and expected project lead times (and informed by the wider considerations noted above), an initial sequence has been developed and is set out below in Table 17. It is important to note that the detailed investigation of the RPI elements and how they fit together may lead to changes in the sequencing.
Table 17 Indicative RPI sequencing Programme elements Total years to Key assumptions12 complete Early improvements 3 to 4 years Assumes large corridor work (e.g. Golden Mile and Hutt Road/Thorndon Quay) is undertaken to a trail installation level of finish. Does not implement place-making or beautification initiatives. Large volume of simultaneous work assumes that industry has capacity and disruption is manageable.
Walkable City 4 to 7 years Assumes some typical urban improvements like lighting and areas of paving, improved access across roads.
12 If any of these assumptions prove incorrect, this has the potential to impact significantly on timeframes, risks and scope of programme elements Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 82
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Connected cycleways 3 to 4 years Intended to be delivered as part of early improvements packages.
Public transport to the 3 to 5 years Assume corridor width reallocation, minor priority and civils. Scope North (Hutt Road / includes cycling improvements and some pedestrian improvements. Thorndon Quay) Assume no widening beyond road reserve, hence no designation. Public transport to / 6 to 8 years Assumes minor civil work, some signal changes, and associated place- through the city making enhancements (Golden Mile assumes full place-making enhancement). Assumes moderate level of complexity for related services work but not full service relocation/upgrade. Assumes only WCC land is needed. Mass transit to Newtown 10 to 14 years Assumes LRT along LGWM preferred alignment with no feasibility issues. Assume investigation includes entire mass transit system and related bus changes. Assume a planning alliance to deliver planning and consenting. Assume once consents are granted the physical works are procured separately. Assume simplified construction sequence of services, slab and stations, track and rolling stock. Assume that three different sections can be worked on simultaneously. Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC). Assume property industry capacity (risk). Assume planning alliance is procured to undertake planning, consenting and reference design for route to Newtown. Assume traditional consenting path as nationally significant without legislation (board of inquiry without high/supreme court appeals). This programme is courageous, there is an extreme risk of rework and sunk cost from design acceleration and service relocation prior to obtaining consents. Assume road closures through Newtown township and centre are accepted by community. Assume two large TOD style stations and one medium station between station and Newtown (railway station, Te Aro Park, Basin respectively). Assume interdependencies between slab and large stations are well understood and mapped.
Mass transit Newtown to 11 to 15 years Assumes LRT along LGWM preferred alignment with no feasibility Airport issues. Assume investigation includes entire mass transit system and related bus changes. Assume a planning alliance to deliver planning and consenting. Assume once consents are granted the physical works are procured separately. Assume simplified construction sequence of tunnel, services, slab and stations, track and rolling stock. Assume that three different sections can be worked on simultaneously. Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC). Assume property industry capacity Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 83
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
(risk). Assume planning alliance is procured to undertake planning, consenting and reference design for route to Airport. Assume traditional consenting path as nationally significant without legislation (board of inquiry without high/supreme court appeals). Assume one medium station at the Airport. Ngauranga to Aotea 5 to 7 years Assume scope is four-laning with rebuilt Aotea Quay off-ramp lane drop Quay southbound 4 and additional work to provide specialised port access (Thorndon laning overbridge seismic performance out of scope). Assume a simple process with no property issues and related delays with GWRC and Kiwirail. Terrace tunnel 8 to 10 years Assumes some variation of duplication scheme. duplication Assume minor property requirements resulting from additional investigation. Main risk is potential to need town belt land. Reclaiming Te Aro 12 to 16 years Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC). Assume alliance delivery model that is lined up during BC approvals. Alliance scope to deliver planning, consenting, design and construction. Assume traditional consenting path as nationally significant without legislation (board of inquiry without high/supreme court appeals). Potential fatal flaw in traditional consenting pathway as Heritage not covered by Board of Inquiry process and project likely to have significant heritage impact. Assume cut and cover methodology due to grades and access points.
Improving the Basin 9 to 11 years Assume that scope includes a structure, and grade separation of westbound movements as a minimum. Assume Board of Inquiry consenting process with some opposition.
Mt Victoria tunnel 10 to 12 years Assume duplication methodology similar to previous scheme. duplication and Ruahine Assume Board of Inquiry consenting process with some opposition. St widening Several key trade-offs in this sequencing require further investigation before they can be resolved. In particular: . Whether demand management and extra buses on other routes can create sufficient modal shift to enable the start of construction of mass transit (and necessary general traffic capacity reductions on the waterfront quays and through Newtown) . The optimal timing of pricing measures to achieve modal shift, having regard to social equity issues and availability of transport choices . If sufficient modal shift cannot be achieved through demand management, whether relocation of general traffic capacity to an improved bypass route can provide a practical alternative in providing effective access to key destinations. A resulting indicative sequence is shown in Figure 22.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 84
Figure 22 Recommended Programme of Investment indicative sequencing, key activities and decision points
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 85
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.6. Recommended Programme Assessment 14.6.1. Cost Assessment A rough order of costs has been developed for the elements of the RPI. These costs are shown in Table 18 and should be considered indicative as outturn costs (client managed costs, construction costs and professional fees). Contingency has been qualitatively assessed and applied to the base estimate. Funding risk has not been applied at this stage. Detailed design for the large interventions has not been undertaken and there will be a range of possible options for most of the interventions. This report bases the cost estimation at this stage on one of the possible options for each intervention. In addition, there a number of significant assumptions that will require testing as part of more detailed option development, particularly those related to underground services, cultural heritage, contaminated land and property purchase. The summary report for cost assessment is shown in Appendix J.
Table 18 Recommended Programme of Investment Cost Assessment
RPI ELEMENT ESTIMATED COST $M (2018 UNINFLATED)
Walkable City 70*
Connected Cycleways 30
Public Transport to the north and to/through the city ** 300
Mass Transit – City to Newtown*** 990
Mass Transit – Newtown to Airport*** 450
Smarter Transport Network 30
Smarter Pricing 30
Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel – Duplicate Ruahine St. / Wellington Rd. 480 Basin Reserve Improvements 130
th Extra Terrace Tunnel and 4 lane Southbound 400
Te Aro Tunnel and Park 1100
TOTAL 4010 * Cost reflects an allocation to undertake early improvements and commence an ongoing programme of larger scale public space improvements ** Excludes rail improvements (funded currently outside of LGWM) *** Cost estimates based on a Light Rail Transit style for Mass Transit
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 86
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.6.2. Investment Objective Assessment The RPI has been assessed against LGWM investment objectives and other key impact areas using both qualitative and quantitative measures and a variety of assessment tools including modelling. The current assessment contains a degree of uncertainty, reflecting the current state of programme development. This uncertainty will be reduced as different RPI components are investigated and designed in more detail. Table 19 summarises the assessment of the RPI against the LGWM Investment Objective KPIs. A more complete and detailed assessment is shown in Appendix C. Table 20 summarises other key impacts of the RPI that have been identified.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 87
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Table 19 Summary of RPI Assessment against Investment Objectives
Objective: Key Performance Indicator Description Comment
Amenity Index Measure of the quality of the Amenity improvements across the central city due to increased pedestrian space along Golden urban environment including Mile, urban activation along side streets, enhancements to the urban realm along the mass greenspace, urban design, traffic transit route, and new open space above Karo Drive. Reduced traffic speeds (to 30km/h) and a volumes/speeds, and pedestrian reduction in traffic volumes in the central city, particularly along the Waterfront and Vivian space Street due to reallocation of capacity.
Carbon dioxide Transport-related CO2 emissions Transport generated emissions in the Wellington region are projected to continuously decrease in the central city over time (50% reduction by 2036) due to changes in the vehicle fleet (fuel efficiency and electric emissions vehicles). Liveability The RPI contributes a further 18% emission reduction per capita within the CBD. Road pricing will have the biggest impact on emissions and the public transport, walking and cycling improvements in the RPI are critical foundations to enable introduction of pricing. Mass transit will support more intensive development in the central city and key centres, meaning more people use public transport and more destinations are within convenient walking and cycling distances.
Urban An assessment of the Mass transit will facilitate urban regeneration and more intensive development around stops and opportunities for urban key centres. This will contribute to land value increase from additional residential homes, and development development and value uplift jobs facilitated by intensification. The RPI will increase the combined value of property along the potential Mass Transit route by up to $560m.
Network The number of people living and Accessibility to the central city and key regional destinations will improve by all modes: working within 30 minutes of key catchment locations General traffic – 34% increase in population catchment within 30 mins of airport Public transport – 19% increase in population catchment within 30 mins of CBD. Travel time The reliability of travel time for Travel time reliability to and through the central city and to key regional destinations will Efficient journeys by different modes to improve by all modes: reliability key regional locations and reliable Dual dedicated public transport spines through the CBD improve public transport access reliability by 50-80% through this part of the network Up to 50% improvement in travel time reliability for traffic accessing the city from the North Up to 35% improvement in travel time reliability for traffic accessing the airport from across the city 50-80% improvement in travel time reliability for public transport journeys to the
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 88
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
central city from the airport or eastern suburbs.
System The ratio of people travelling to System occupancy will increase due to increased public transport and active mode use and more the central city (by all modes) intensification in the central city /Te Aro occupancy against private vehicles travelling Public transport mode share increases from around 35% to 45% in the morning peak to the central city Reduced 15-20% reduction in vehicle numbers entering the central city during the morning peak. reliance on Level of service Delays for people walking in the People walking in the central city will be delayed less due to reduced traffic volumes. Pedestrian private central city crossing priority will be enhanced along key pedestrian routes in the central city. for walking vehicles Level of service An assessment of the quality of The level of service for cycling will improve from poor to good or very good throughout the cycling facilities central city and for connections to the east via Mt Victoria tunnel. Some improvement for cyclists for cycling when connecting to the north and the south.
Safety Safety for An estimate of the safety There will be fewer fatal and serious injury crashes (estimated 30% reduction) for pedestrians benefits for people walking and and cyclists due to less traffic and slower traffic speeds in central city, and less conflicts. walking and cycling in and around the central Improved pedestrian priority and crossing facilities will also contribute to safer city streets. cycling city
Adaptable Network An assessment of the network’s Access between communities and key regional facilities (hospital, airport, port) will be more resilience to disruption caused by secure following a large-scale natural hazard event. The transport network will be more to resilience large-scale natural hazards resilience to small scale disruption due to additional capacity on both traffic and public transport disruptions networks.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 89
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
OTHER IMPACTS
The following impacts have not yet been specifically quantified due to the recommended programme of investment being in the early stages of development with a high level of uncertainty around some elements of the RPI, however it is important that they are flagged at this stage as their scale could be significant.
Table 20 Summary of RPI Assessment – other impacts
IMPACT: Type of impact Scale Mitigation
What: On-street car parks will need to be removed City wide along key Parking mitigation strategy will be a key corridors element of the programme Where: Through the central city and along main corridors to south, east, north Around 1100 – 1300 Improvements to public transport and on-street parking Parking Why: To reallocate space to moving people walking and cycling links, coupled with spaces lost over pricing, will reduce the demand for parking The number of parks affected and where will be determined as detailed design duration of RPI progresses.
What: Private property and heritage items affected Urban design improvements will be incorporated into designs for transport Where: Along main corridors to south and east – mass transit and SH1 routes Built improvements Localised environment Why: To provide space for mass transit and other key infrastructure works Detailed design will progress cognisant of the and heritage Exact nature of impacts are not currently known. May include land take, impact on requirement to preserve heritage features property frontage or setting, or require a building to be changed or moved. and enhance the overall built environment
What: Road or lane closures, reduced speeds, stop/start conditions Sequencing will be important to manage demand and available capacity Construction Where: Through the central city and along main corridors to south & east – mass City wide disruption transit & SH1 Travel demand management techniques will Why: To accommodate construction of new and improved infrastructure be employed
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 90
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
14.6.3. Economic Assessment A high-level economic analysis has been undertaken to understand the likely scale of economic benefits that can be expected from implementation of the RPI. This economic analysis is summarised in Appendix K. Two scenarios have been evaluated and are outlined below: Medium Growth Scenario This scenario assumes a medium level of population growth in the region, equivalent to 50,000 additional residents in Wellington City in 2046 compared to 2013 and population growth of around 100,000 across the region during the same time period. This approach is consistent with assumptions made for other transport and land use planning projects across the Wellington Region. It assumes static land use distribution, in alignment with current projections. The construction period is assumed to be approximately 18 years and the evaluation period is 40 years. Benefits have been modelled from 2026 to 2036 and are assumed to increase at 1% per annum from 2036 to 2059. High Growth Scenario The high growth-redistributed scenario assumes 80,000 additional residents in Wellington City in the Do Minimum in 2046 compared to 2013 (equivalent figure for medium growth is 50,000) and re- distribution of growth as a result of the programme. This is a project specific scenario reflecting the fact that an improvement programme of this scale may catalyse additional growth and result in re- distribution of population and employment. The high growth scenario also assumes that there are no other constraints to growth in terms of land and other infrastructure, benefits increase at 2% pa post 2036, and a longer construction period that delays high-cost components. Initial analysis suggests that benefits in 2036 could be between 20% and 35% greater than the medium growth scenario as a result of the following: . Additional population growth, compounded by re-distribution of population / employment growth to the corridor where investment is focussed . A Do Minimum scenario that has higher levels of congestion results in a programme that delivers higher benefits per person . Lack of capacity on the public transport and private vehicle network constrains growth and the RPI delivers significantly higher benefits by removing capacity constraints. A summary of the key elements of the RPI, along with their estimated costs is shown in Table 21.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 91
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Table 21 RPI costs – low and high estimates (undiscounted, includes opex) Low (90% of High (120% of Programme Component Central central) central) Walkable City $60 $70 $80 Connected Cycleway $30 $30 $40 Public transport (City and North) $400 $440 $530 Mass Transit - Station to Newtown $1,000 $1,120 $1,340 Mass Transit - Newtown to Airport $500 $500 $600 Mt Victoria Tunnel and Ruahine Street $450 $500 $600 Improving Basin $120 $130 $160 Terrace Tunnel and 4th southbound lane $370 $410 $490 Karo Drive undergrounding $1,000 $1,120 $1,340 Smarter Transport Network $30 $35 $40 Smarter Pricing $30 $35 $40 Total $3,940 $4,380 $5,260
A peer review of these costs concluded that the process for estimating them was sound and that at the next stage there is scope for value engineering to reduce costs without reducing benefits. Due to the complexity of the programme and its significance beyond a pure transport project, a wide range of benefits have been counted to assess the impact of the programme, not only traditional travel time benefits but also on wider outcomes for the city. Benefits quantified include: . Health benefits from increases in cycling, walking, and walking to public transport that increases physical activity and overall health . Liveability benefits from reduced severance and increased green space . Safety benefits for people walking, on bikes, and in cars due to fewer and less serious crashes . Environmental benefits, including reduced carbon emissions, noise, and water pollution . Economic benefits from increased productivity and a transport system that supports growth . More reliable, more pleasant and less crowded travel offered by mass transit that delivers benefits above and beyond traditional travel time benefits . Changes in the future distribution of housing and employment in the city and region as a result of the programme . Wider economic benefits from increases in productivity, agglomeration and land values. Accordingly, the economic assessment of the RPI has used elements of traditional transportation economic analysis, coupled with analysis to understand the potential linkages between transport interventions and land use development. The benefit streams assessment shows: . Medium growth scenario - Total benefits quantified are between $1.4 and $2.7 billion . High growth – redistributed scenario - Total benefits quantified are between $1.7 and $3.3 billion . Total travel time benefits for the medium growth scenario of $1.0bn and $1.8bn (high growth – redistributed scenario: $1.2bn and $2.2bn) split roughly 50:50 between private vehicle and public transport
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 92
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
. Wider economic benefits in the range $600m to $1.3bn (High Growth – Redistributed: $800m to $1.6bn) . Combined health and safety benefits of $200m to $400m Table 22 provides a summary of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) ranges for the RPI across both of the scenarios (where the lower benefits come from the medium growth scenario and the higher benefits come from the higher growth scenario). Two BCR ranges have been produced. The first captures the total cost of the RPI, the second captures the reduced cost to the government (BCR-G) on the assumption that a proportion of the cost can be funded through alternative funding streams (such as developer contributions).
Table 22 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary (costs and benefits discounted)
Full Cost BCR Cost to Government BCR-G Lower Central Higher Lower Central Higher
benefits benefits benefits benefits Full Costs $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Programme Benefits with cordon $1,350 $2,350 $3,300 $1,350 $2,350 $3,300 charge BCR 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 1.2 1.7
Table 22 can be summarised as follows: . The ‘central’ assessment assumes a level of benefits between the middle of what is achievable under a medium growth scenario and the middle of what is achievable under a high growth scenario . The full cost RPI BCR is likely to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.4, reflecting the programme’s high benefits, as well as high costs . If third party funding of 15% of totals costs can be identified, the cost to government (BCR-G) is likely to be in the range of 0.7 to 1.7. The major opportunities for improvement and refinement at the next stage relate to: . Further detailed modelling and planning of programme timing and sequencing to optimise the benefits and mitigate construction impacts . More detailed assessment of costs to understand whether there are areas where costs could be saved whilst preserving benefits . Benchmarking against other jurisdictions to be more certain about where the benefits and costs might sit within the currently reported range . More detailed investigation for the programme elements that are relatively unknown in New Zealand, such as a more robust assessment of the benefits and impacts of pricing. Further investigation will allow the BCR to be assessed more accurately, but it is unlikely to result in a BCR outside the current reported range. When estimating the BCR in the next stage of the project, it will be important to consider any additional interventions to what is currently proposed in the RPI that emerge from further detailed investigations. Further sensitivity analysis will be needed in relation to: . Costs that are significantly lower than currently expected. This could potentially be achieved through use of alternative or emerging technologies
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 93
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
. Possible deferral of higher cost components of the programme without significantly affecting the shorter to medium term benefits that may result for further work on sequencing. . Potentially higher levels of population and employment growth – effectively a continuation of recent population trends for a 15 to 20 year period – as has been assumed for the High Growth – Redistributed scenario . Higher wider economic benefits than have currently been calculated, driven to a certain extent by higher growth, accepting the fact that the wider economic benefits (WEBS) as currently estimated contribute around 30%-40% of overall benefits, a figure which is broadly in line with projects of a similar size and nature and reflecting the transformational nature of the RPI. 14.6.4. Investment Assessment Framework (2018-21) Results Alignment Assessment The results alignment assessment as set out in the Investment Assessment Framework (2018-21) considered several different activity classes, reflecting the wide nature of the RPI. This assessment is shown in Appendix L, and can be summarised as: . Road safety promotion and demand management programmes – High Results Alignment . Walking and cycling improvement activities –High Results Alignment . Public transport improvement activities, including rapid transit and transitional rail – Very High Results Alignment . Road improvement activities – High Results Alignment Although road improvement RPI elements have High results alignment, they are enablers to mitigate and manage the impacts of the Very High elements in order to achieve LGWM objectives and the future vision for Wellington. Therefore, having regard to the integrated nature of the LGWM investment programme, the RPI is indicated as having High/Very High results alignment overall. It delivers strong outcomes against GPS result areas: . Metropolitan and high growth urban areas are better connected and accessible . Better access to markets, business areas, and supporting tourism . Increased mode shift from private vehicle trips to walking, cycling and public transport . Improved network resilience for the most critical connections . Reduce transport’s negative effects on the local environment and public health Costs and Benefits Appraisal As discussed in Section 14.6.3, the RPI BCR is likely to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.4. Achieving a BCR greater than 1 would be dependent upon a number of conditions, such as population and employment growth, increased wider economic benefits, and reduced costs, each of which will be investigated in further detail during the next stage of investigations. Therefore, the RPI is assessed as having an indicative Low costs and benefits appraisal rating, which will need to be confirmed during later business case development phases. This reflects the uncertain nature of the economics, and potential to achieve a benefit-cost ratio in the 1 to 3 range.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 94
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
Urgency Assessment There are several reasons why detailed investigation cannot be deferred beyond the 2018/21 NLTP period. . Public transport services in Wellington will approach capacity within the next ten years. In reality, more and more services within the core of the peak will reach capacity. As the perception of public transport as a viable travel choice erodes, people and businesses will increasingly respond by changing behaviour. . A step change in public transport through implementation of a mass transit system will require a long lead time due to the complexities of Wellington’s compact urban form. . Uncertainty around the detail of the projects proposed by LGWM (e.g. property impacts) can result in reduced levels of development and investment. Developer investment will be required to maximise the land use changes that are integrated with the transport components of LGWM. In addition, the rationale for commencing early improvements within the current NLTP period is that they: . Provide significant benefits relative to their cost. . Can start to create travel behaviour change in a smooth way. Encouraging use of walking, cycling, and public transport as viable travel choices prior to the mass transit system being implemented. . Enable disruption from construction of larger programme elements to be managed through providing improved alternative choices in the interim. 14.7. Programme Risks and Uncertainties The key risks identified at this stage of the programme’s development are summarised in Table 23 below.
Table 23 Risks, potential consequences, and management strategy
RISK TYPE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The growth in regional As the growth forecasts are the key drivers of A wide range of growth forecasts is being population and employment transport demand, the need for changes to the assumed so as to ensure there is a high may be lower or higher than transport system may be less urgent or more probability that the actual growth will be forecast urgent than currently forecast within the range The distribution of growth Precise sequencing for several elements of between the central city and the RPI will be informed by monitoring the rest of the region may be different to that forecast The modal preferences of The transport modelling carried out to date may Precise sequencing for several elements of customers may be changing due be over-estimating or under-estimating the the RPI will be informed by monitoring to economic, social or demand for travel by private vehicles in relation technological changes to travel by other modes
Funding priorities of central and The RPI may not reflect funding priorities, and The RPI has been developed to be flexible local government may change the programme may not deliver anticipated to funding priorities over time benefits if only partially implemented Precise sequencing for several elements of the RPI will be informed by monitoring
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 95
PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme
The RPI will draw substantial Parts of the RPI may not receive funding, and Ongoing collaborative and integrated funding from a number of the programme may not deliver anticipated business case development, design, sources, and some of these may benefits if only partially implemented consenting and implementation not eventuate e.g. economic The RPI has been developed to be flexible downturn to funding availability
Major infrastructure elements Wellington City may fall behind other Using a programme business case in which within the programme will have competitor cities as a result of the transport all agencies are well coordinated should long lead times for planning and system not addressing the problems or speed up any pre-construction phases and consenting processes facilitating the opportunities in a timely manner reduce the overall time needed to implement the investment programme Ongoing collaborative and integrated business case development, design, consenting and implementation
Forecasting for large scale Investment in transport system resilience may Align with ongoing resiliency planning natural hazard events is an prove to be insufficient to facilitate timely within the region, including exploring uncertain process recovery following a larger than anticipated appetite for risk event Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be unnecessary if an event does not occur
The RPI assumes The opportunity to leverage investment in the Decision points prior to implementation of complementary land use transport system to facilitate urban major infrastructure that will reflect planning changes e.g. district development will be lost monitoring of land use policy plan changes which may not The RPI may not represent a value for money Ongoing collaborative and integrated eventuate investment if it does not facilitate urban business case development, design, generation in the central city and Newtown consenting and implementation
Risk that investment will not be Potential to reinforce Wellington’s Staying flexible in reviewing the programme integrated with shift in technological and innovative reputation is lost to incorporate changing technologies when transport system from Introducing unproven systems may result in they are judged to be sufficiently mature technological advances sub-optimal outcomes or abortive investment A lack of integrated Key elements of the programme may be put on Ongoing collaborative and integrated implementation e.g. resulting hold, undermining the effectiveness of the business case development, design, from opposition to potential programme as a whole consenting and implementation intervention impacts Ongoing engagement and consultation with the public and stakeholders
Resource and/or funding Delaying elements of the programme may make High priority given to maintaining transport constraints may result in it difficult or impossible to satisfactorily manage system performance through early design of programme elements being disruption to the transport system during transport system transformation delayed/deferred construction phases (e.g. closure of lanes to programme element allow mass transit infrastructure construction)
There may be pressures to Key elements of the programme may not be Build a high level of support for the change the balance of central implemented, undermining the effectiveness of programme at local, regional and central and local government funding the programme as a whole government levels arrangements over the implementation of the RPI
Significant cost of RPI may The Wellington region has a limited ability to The RPI has been developed to be flexible preclude other transport invest in transport projects outside of LGWM to changing transport demand investments in region
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 96
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Affordability Constraints PART C – PREFERRED WAY FORWARD 15. AFFORDABILITY CONTRAINTS (2019) The recommended programme of investment (RPI) as developed in Part B has been endorsed by the Transport Agency’s Board as a programme business case, indicating that the strategic approach and outcomes sought are valid, and that the RPI was the preferred way forward at that point in time (November 2018). This support did not include commitment to progressing to the next stage (development of detailed business cases and implementing early improvements) until further work had been carried out on the funding and financing arrangements. LGWM partners were not able to commit to funding the full RPI because of the programme’s high costs and the competing funding demands of other infrastructure investment projects in Wellington and other regions over the next 20 years. Given the scale of LGWM, the funding of the programme will have significant implications for the levels of fuel excise duty and road user charges over that period. There may also be a need to use long term borrowing to finance any residual gap between the cash flow requirements of LGWM and what the NLTF can fund on a pay- as-you-go basis. These NLTF revenue and borrowing decisions are for the Government to decide rather than the Transport Agency. The Minister of Transport worked with the WCC Mayor and GWRC Chair (with advice from the Ministry of Transport and LGWM) to develop an “Indicative Package” of their preferences that would fit within a fundable envelope, aimed at making optimal progress towards the LGWM vision. The Indicative Package that emerged from these discussions is set out in Section 16. Following announcement of the Indicative Package, LGWM released a number of technical documents and material that has underpinned the programme business case. This material and the way in which it relates to this Programme Business Case and LGWM summary material is shown in Appendix N.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 97
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package 16. INDICATIVE PACKAGE (2019) The Indicative Package, when formally supported by the LGWM partners and central government, will represent the preferred way forward for implementing LGWM. The Indicative Package comprises the following components from the RPI: . A walkable city - accessibility and amenity improvements, setting safer speeds for vehicles, walking improvements include in major components . Connected cycleways - cycleways on Featherston St, Thorndon Quay, Courtenay Place – Dixon St, Taranaki St, Willis St, Victoria St, Kent and Cambridge Terrace and Bowen St . Public transport (city and north) - dual public transport spine through the central city on the Golden Mile and Waterfront Quays; rail network improvements; and bus priority on Thorndon Quay and Hutt Rd . Smarter transport network - full integrated ticketing; transition to integrated transport network operating systems; travel demand management measures including Mobility as a Service, parking policy improvements and education and engagement . Mass (Rapid) Transit - provide mass transit as part of the wider public transport network from the railway station to Newtown, and Newtown to the airport . Unblocking the Basin Reserve - package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all modes; Basin Reserve grade separation between north-south movements, east-west movements and any mass transit corridors . An extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and widening at Ruahine Street - extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and widening of Ruahine St and Wellington road to improve access for buses and dedicated walking and cycling facilities. The extra Mt Victoria tunnel project is included in the package, and is expected to proceed late in the first decade once: . Mass transit to Newtown has been delivered and is operational . The detailed business case for the project has been undertaken and updated demand modelling confirms that the projects will support a reduction in single occupant vehicle journeys, during peak periods, and mode shift to public and active transport. The total capital cost of the Indicative Package is estimated as $3,665M (2019 risk adjusted capital costs). Table 24 sets out a more detailed description of the Indicative Package components, the estimated capital cost of each component and the objectives the components are aimed at achieving.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 98
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
Table 24 Indicative Package of Investments and Costs
2019 ESTIMATED COMPONENT DESCRIPTION OBJECTIVES 13 CAPITAL COST ($M)
A walkable city Accessibility and amenity improvements, setting safer speeds for vehicles, and A city that is safe and attractive to walk around. 95 walking improvements.
Connected cycleways Cycleways on Featherston Street, Thorndon Quay, Courtenay Place, Dixon Street, A connected and safe central city cycleway network integrated with the wider cycleway 40 Taranaki Street, Willis Street, Victoria Street, Kent and Cambridge Terraces and network. Bowen Street
Public transport (city and north) Dual public transport spine through the central city on the Golden Mile and A reliable public transport system that enables Wellington to grow and encourages public 360 Waterfront Quays, rail network improvements and bus priority on Thorndon Quay transport mode shift, better public transport choices to the north and enables a 30 and Hutt Road. percent increase in rail peak patronage.
Smarter transport network Full integrated ticketing, transition to integrated transport network operating A well-managed transport system that makes best use of infrastructure and helps smooth 80 systems, travel demand management measures including Mobility as a Service, transition through implementation of the Indicative Package. parking policy improvements and education and engagement.
Rapid transit Provide rapid transit as part of the wider public transport network from the railway Improves travel choice through the city with an attractive public transport option to the 2,200 station to Newtown, and Newtown to the airport. hospital and airport and creates an opportunity to share a more compact and sustainable Wellington City.
Unblocking the Basin Reserve Package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all modes, Basin Reduces conflict between different movements and modes creating more reliable access 190 Reserve grade separation between north-south movements, east-west movements for all modes. and any rapid transit corridors.
Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and widening of Ruahine Street/Wellington Road to Improves access reliability and travel choice from the east for all modes, relocates through 700 and widening of Ruahine Street improve access for buses and dedicated walking and cycling facilities. traffic away from Evans Bay route and Constable Street, onto the state highway, and ensures network function while rapid transit is constructed in Newtown.
Total 3,665
13 Capital costs only. Cabinet cost estimates vary from LGWM estimates as they represent risk adjusted estimates. Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 99
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
16.1. Funding and Financing the Indicative Package 16.1.1. Funding Shares The Indicative Package proposes that Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council will together contribute 40 percent of the costs of the Indicative Package, and central government will contribute 60 percent through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). The share of NLTF funding for each project in the Indicative Package may differ from the overall 60:40 split. For example, projects in the package that align closely with the results identified in the GPS may be eligible for a targeted enhanced Funding Assistance Rate to accelerate their delivery. State Highway projects within the Indicative Package are unlikely to receive more than 50 percent funding from Central Government. Over 30 years, the Government share of the Indicative Package is estimated to be $3.8 billion, based on total capital expenditure of $2.2 billion (60% share of total 2018 capital cost). This amount allows for cost increases, inflation and the cost of financing. The ability for the NLTF to fund central government’s share of the LGWM Indicative Package assumes the Wellington region will receive 10.5 percent of NLTF revenues over 30 years. The basis for this allocation is that the Wellington region currently has 10.7 percent of New Zealand’s population, although this is expected to drop slightly in the medium term. In addition to this, it is proposed that the rapid transit component of the Indicative Package will be financed and repaid over a 50-year period. 16.2. Assessment of the Indicative Package Preliminary assessment of the Indicative Package has been undertaken at a high level, and is less comprehensive than the evaluation of the RPI. To enable evaluation, LGWM has made a number of assumptions on the form and function of the Indicative Package elements that are likely to change as a result of further investigation and design. Key findings include: . Evaluation of the Indicative Package shows a slight increase in mode shift to public transport compared with the RPI . Reduction in capacity on road network results in increased travel time and variability on the state highway and local road networks o Relative to base, do minimum and RPI o Mitigated by the assumed effectiveness of a pricing mechanism . Sensitivity tests show: o An effective pricing mechanism is required to support the Indicative Package o A cordon charge is likely to be more effective than a parking levy, but further analysis is required to confirm this . A pricing mechanism is essential for the effectiveness of the Indicative Package o The modelling assumes the pricing mechanism is effective and has been deployed to deliver outcomes, rather than as a means to calculate the appropriate charging level. Further analysis needs to be done to determine the level of pricing and preferred pricing approach. o Sensitivity testing shows that a cordon charge is likely to be more effective than a parking levy. A cordon charge would further reduce trips through the CBD. Further analysis is required to confirm this. Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 100
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
16.2.1. Key Performance Indicators Assessment KPI 1: Amenity Index The Indicative Package will improve amenity in the central city compared with the Do Minimum. But this improvement will not be as great as the RPI on Vivian Street, Karo Drive, and local streets, such as the waterfront Quays and Taranaki St, due to higher traffic volumes. KPI 2: Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city Lesser improvement in CBD Vehicle Kilometres Travelled for the Indicative Package (compared to RPI) due to a higher number of through trips. Less improvement in CBD CO2 emissions under the Indicative Package (compared to RPI) due to a parking levy being less effective at managing travel demand through the city than a cordon charge. KPI 3: Opportunities for urban development and value uplift Under the RPI: . Mass transit with a high degree of separation/priority will deliver strong urban development potential . Te Aro improvements will deliver modest urban development potential but provide significant urban amenity benefits. Under the Indicative Programme: . Mass transit with a high degree of separation/priority will deliver strong urban development potential . No improvements in urban development potential in Te Aro. KPI 4: System occupancy Table 25 shows the slight improvement in occupancy for the Indicative Package (4.0) relative to the RPI (3.9).
Table 25 System occupancy assessment for the Indicative Package
ENTERING THE CENTRAL CITY IN THE MORNING PEAK 2016 DO-MINIMUM RPI INDICATIVE PACKAGE
Number of People 82,000 95,000 98,000 98,000
Number of Vehicles 31,000 31,000 25,500 24,500
Occupancy (People per Vehicle) 2.7 3.1 3.9 4.0
KPI 5: Delays for people walking in the central city The Indicative Package will deliver similar walking benefits to the RPI with a few exceptions: . The Te Aro tunnel in the RPI delivers benefits to pedestrians by removing severance and providing a higher amenity pedestrian corridor. Under the Indicative Package these benefits won’t be available . Vivian Street in the RPI becomes a two-way city street delivering opportunities for improved pedestrian facilities along and across the street. In the Indicative Package improvements for people walking on Vivian Street are likely to be less effective due to higher traffic volumes.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 101
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
KPI 6: The quality of cycling facilities The quality of cycling facilities resulting from the Indicative Package is likely to be similar to the RPI, noting some impact as a result of likely higher traffic volumes but further design is required to understand the implications of not including the Te Aro improvements. KPI 7: The number of people living and working within 30 mins of key destinations Table 26 shows a reduction in network catchment for private vehicles for the Indicative Package relative to the RPI. Public transport catchment is likely to be similar.
Table 26 Network catchment assessment for the Indicative Package
NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING… DO-MINIMUM RPI INDICATIVE PACKAGE
…within 30 minutes driving time of the central city 274,000 356,000 314,000
…within 30 minutes public transport travel time to central city 179,000 221,000 221,000
KPI 8: The reliability of travel time by different modes to key regional destinations The Indicative Package delivers less improvement in travel time variability for private vehicles than the RPI. More detailed work is required to confirm the overall network impact. Improvements to public transport travel time variability are similar for the Indicative Package and the RPI, assuming that public transport has sufficient capacity to meet extra demand. An implied assumption is that pricing brings an opportunity to reallocate road space to public transport and makes it more reliable. KPI 9: Deaths and serious injuries for people walking and cycling in and around the central city Safety for people walking and cycling was qualitatively assessed: . The current accident rate is relatively low . Safety issues are generally at intersections . Intersection improvements (at detailed design) are likely to result in safety improvements . Removal of general traffic, or reduction in traffic speed is likely to result in safety improvements . The Indicative Package does not perform as strongly as the RPI as it addresses fewer conflicts, particularly in Te Aro and for some sections of the local network such as Taranaki Street and the Waterfront, which will see relatively higher numbers of vehicle through-trips. KPI 10: Network resilience to disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards An extra Mt Victoria tunnel and a possible new tunnel at Mount Albert will deliver resilience and operational flexibility benefits. Resilience improvements on the key northern corridor will be limited without the 4th lane southbound, the second Terrace Tunnel, and improvements through Te Aro. Other Significant Impacts Compared with the RPI, the Indicative Package will deliver: . A similar reduction to on-street parking . Reduced built environment and heritage impacts due to the absence of a tunnel through Te Aro Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 102
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
. Reduced construction disruption impact due to absence of a tunnel through Te Aro, Terrace Tunnel duplication and 4th lane southbound. 16.2.2. Economic Assessment A preliminary assessment has been undertaken for the Indicative Package. While this assessment was coarser than the level of assessment undertaken for the RPI, the assessment indicates the following relative economic benefits at a high level: . Similar levels of benefit for public transport . Similar levels of benefit for value uplift along the mass transit corridor, assuming a similar mass transit system as the RPI . Reduced agglomeration benefits, in part due to less improvement in accessibility via the state highway . Reduced levels of benefit for walking, cycling, safety, health, and amenity due to higher number of vehicle through-trips in the central city . For road network travel time: o Initial modelling suggests the Indicative Package delivers approximately 25% of RPI benefits o Modelling of road network travel time is optimistic and likely underestimates increase in congestion in central city o Further work is needed at the detailed business case stage to quantify the impacts. The benefit-cost-ratio of the Indicative Package is likely to be in a similar range to the BCR range reported for the RPI (0.6 – 1.4 full cost BCR). Further analysis, modelling and optimisation of the Indicative Package will be required to confirm this. 16.3. Whole-of-System Solution While the Indicative Package has the potential to deliver on the strategic intent of the RPI, a whole-of-system solution similar to that presented in Section 14.4 will still be needed to unlock all benefits and deliver an optimised programme. Indicative Package programme elements are interdependent, meaning that it is still important to retain flexibility to review programme elements with regard to each other in future phases. 16.4. Sequencing, Interdependencies and Trigger Points LGWM has not undertaken any additional detailed consideration of sequencing, interdependencies and trigger points following the announcement of the Indicative Package. However, many of the findings and identified risks from sequencing the RPI are still relevant, as is the need to continue reviewing these issues as LGWM develops into a new entity and moves closer to delivering the programme. Key recommendations for moving forward include: . A focus on staging, sequencing and transport system transformation must be embedded in the design, resourcing and funding of the LGWM delivery vehicle. It must also form part of the scope of all detailed business case (DBC) processes with coordination and alignment managed as an ongoing process across these elements . A range of principles and criteria to inform the programme staging and sequencing needs to be identified and agreed. Draft principles and criteria were identified in the LGWM Staging report and these should be tested and reconfirmed in the next phase of work linked to the DBC processes . Engage with other major infrastructure programmes in the Wellington region. This should include processes and some form of working relationships to map programme timing and delivery to consider both opportunities and constraints Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 103
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package
. Engage with and learn from other similar transformative transport programmes to ensure lessons and tools from these are drawn upon and utilised as part of the LGWM programme . Consider, plan and deliver broader opportunities to minimise the disruptive impacts of change through engaging with communities to understand how to provide alternative business and people place opportunities during the delivery of the programme. This will require dedicated resourcing and funding . Develop a step change in capability to manage operations planning and coordination. This needs to be across all three partners to ensure that this capability can link from a strategic long-term view to day to day operations management. This needs to be integrated with the mandate and scope of the integrated delivery vehicle of the programme and will require full buy-in from all three programme partners . Engage early with utilities operators and develop a strategic approach to managing the impacts on utilities – this should also inform the scope, location and detail of projects as outlined in the first recommendation. This needs to be well resourced and prioritised.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 104
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case 17. MANAGEMENT CASE Achieving the benefits sought by LGWM in an optimised way will require a significant commitment of resources and important policy decisions. This will include: . Increased funding allocations through Long Term Plan and NLTP amendments . Agreement to use new funding mechanisms to generate revenue needed to meet local share requirements . Changes to land use planning settings to enable urban intensification to complement new transport infrastructure . Agreement to an integrated delivery model. In addition, some central government decisions will be needed to enable the programme to progress. These include: . Funding commitments via the GPS and other mechanisms as appropriate . Enabling legislation to permit new funding, pricing and delivery mechanisms . Partnering with local government to explore new and innovative ways of financing and delivery (e.g. an urban development agency). Regional partner support for the programme will also be important. This will include: . Support to implement the programme, including wider regional connections . Continued commitment to supporting land use policies that reinforce a shift to public transport, walking and cycling. 17.1. Delivery Model There are several options for how to implement a programme of investment. These range from delivery of different pieces of the programme by the three partner agencies under ‘business as usual’ arrangements, through to collaborative agreements, or even formation of a new agency charged with delivery. LGWM, having completed the programme business case phase, is restructuring into a more delivery focused entity to deliver the bulk of the programme. While transitioning from the programme business case to detailed investigation and delivery, several tasks will be ongoing. These include establishing the new delivery entity, undertaking detailed investigations, and the early delivery of less complicated programme elements. Governance and oversight arrangements will continue in the interim with high level involvement from the three partners. 17.2. Next Steps for Delivery The programme has been initially arranged into indicative discrete elements (as shown in Figure 23) based on their interdependencies. Common aspects such as programming and modelling are shown as work streams that sit across all the programme elements to ensure consistency of information and delivery as illustrated in Figure 24.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 105
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case
Figure 23 Indicative Packaging of Programme Elements
Programme Elements Details
Unlocking rail network capacity (GWRC/KR led outside programme) Safer speeds Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road Early delivery Golden Mile Technology and network enhancements Suburban bus priority measures Central city bus priority measures
Place-making Reconfigure urban Pedestrian improvements corridors Cycling improvements Bus improvements on main routes to northern suburbs Bus improvements to and through the central city
Mass transit route from Wellington Railway Station to Newtown Mass Transit / Public Mass transit route to the Airport Transport system Complimentary bus/train changes to optimise the entire public transport system
Managing travel Travel Demand Management demand Integrated transport operating system
Ngauranga to Aotea Quay widening (if included) Regional highway Terrace Tunnel to Te Aro (if included) access Improving the Basin Mt Vic Tunnel and Ruahine Street
Figure 24 Indicative Structure of Packages
Programme Coordination and Delivery Sequencing, system transformation, system performance, business case integration and benefits realisation
Communications and engagement
Urban development Mass Re- and design Managing Regional Transit / configure Early travel highway Public urban delivery access Modelling and Transport demand corridors monitoring system
Technical leadership and review
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 106
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case
17.3. Programme Monitoring and Reviews There are several reasons for a robust monitoring plan14 that is updated as LGWM progresses. A monitoring plan can be used: . As a basis for post implementation tracking of success, which can importantly generate lessons for other projects . To create awareness of potential effects of the programme that may be influenced . To inform trigger points and decisions during programme implementation . As a basis for other investment and management decisions, such as enabling the DTST to affect behaviour change through temporary interventions. Several measures are suggested for monitoring in addition to the programme KPIs as part of the monitoring plan shown in Appendix M. It is worth noting that these measures will need refinement moving forward, particularly as more detailed investigation improves understanding of forecast impacts. 17.3.1. Measures Identified Measures that are identified for annual monitoring to keep awareness of unintended outcomes include: . Transport CO2 Emissions in Central City . System Occupancy (including movement into the central city, mode split, and vehicle occupancy) . Pedestrian signalised crossing delays on key routes . Network catchment (average travel times) and travel time reliability on key routes . Total deaths and serious injuries, and pedestrian and cyclist representation, in a local, regional, and national context . Expand the temporal scope of the cordon survey to improve understanding of movement for non-commuting purposes . Traffic Noise on streets identified for high pedestrian amenity, potentially predictive through use of the NZ Transport Agency traffic noise calculator . Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Survey – particularly scoring of Quality of Road Network and Quality of Public Transport – to help understand consequences on larger picture perception . Air quality and concentration of non-CO2 emissions – particulates, NO2 . Lane availability reductions due to unplanned events (potentially expand the geographic scope beyond the State Highway to record some of the key local arterials Measures that are identified for annual monitoring to inform implementation and sequencing decisions include: . System Occupancy (including movement into the central city, mode split, and vehicle occupancy) . Network catchment (average travel times) and travel time reliability on key routes
14 Note that monitoring referred to in this section is separate from monitoring that is planned and undertaken under the Resource Management Act and consenting processes.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 107
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case . Growth in population and employment . Qualitative understanding of market demand for higher density housing within the city, underpinned by quantitative monitoring of residential completions by type, development trends, and housing affordability already undertaken by WCC. Measures that are identified for post implementation monitoring include: . Amenity Index on key corridors . Transport CO2 Emissions in Central City . System Occupancy (including movement into the central city, mode split, and vehicle occupancy) . Pedestrian signalised crossing delays on key routes . Cycling level of service on key routes . Network catchment (average travel times) and travel time reliability on key routes . Pedestrian and cyclist deaths and serious injuries . Qualitative assessment of resilience to large scale hazard events. Some other specific uses of measures include: . Continually update the resilience measure as part of the investigation and detailed design processes. Assess how any interventions performed following any large events that occur . Use the cycling level of service assessment and amenity assessment as a tool to help guide design considerations. 17.3.2. Next Steps and Ownership It is suggested that the LGWM delivery vehicle is charged, not only with delivering the programme, but also undertaking programme monitoring with support from the partner agencies. Most of the detailed monitoring will be undertaken as part of existing commitments by the LGWM partner agencies. New monitoring systems will need to be established for: . Potential adjustments to the existing WCC cordon counts, particularly expanding hours of operation to include weekend and shoulder peak periods . Lane availability monitoring for identified key local roads to supplement State Highway 1 reporting – to be established as part of early improvements or transition to integrated transport operating system business cases. Business case phases subsequent to this PBC will need to integrate monitoring at a programme- element level with programme-wide monitoring and ensure appropriate targets and means of monitoring are put in place. As detailed understanding of programme elements is developed through these business cases, there may also be a need to update the programme-level outcome targets.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 108
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case 17.4. Programme Funding As mentioned in Section 16.1.1 the Minister of Transport has expressed an intention for how the programme might be funded and financed. This high-level funding still requires agreement from WCC, GWRC, and the NZ Transport Agency. In addition, there is a need to understand and agree how funding splits might vary between different programme elements, between different programme stages, and reflect the different funding sources and funding nature for the three programme partners. This work is currently ongoing. 17.5. Risks and Uncertainties The key risks identified at this stage of the programme’s development are summarised in Table 27 below.
Table 27 Risks, potential consequences, and management strategy
RISK TYPE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The growth in regional As the growth forecasts are the key drivers of A wide range of growth forecasts is being population and employment transport demand, the need for changes to the assumed so as to ensure there is a high may be lower or higher than transport system may be less urgent or more probability that the actual growth will be forecast urgent than currently forecast within the range The distribution of growth Precise sequencing for several elements of between the central city and the RPI will be informed by monitoring the rest of the region may be different to that forecast
The modal preferences of The transport modelling carried out to date may Precise sequencing for several elements of customers may be changing due be over-estimating or under-estimating the the RPI will be informed by monitoring to economic, social or demand for travel by private vehicles in relation technological changes to travel by other modes
Funding priorities of central and The RPI may not reflect funding priorities, and The RPI has been developed to be flexible local government may change the programme may not deliver anticipated to funding priorities over time benefits if only partially implemented Precise sequencing for several elements of the RPI will be informed by monitoring
The RPI will draw substantial Parts of the RPI may not receive funding, and Ongoing collaborative and integrated funding from a number of the programme may not deliver anticipated business case development, design, sources, and some of these may benefits if only partially implemented consenting and implementation not eventuate e.g. economic The RPI has been developed to be flexible downturn to funding availability
Major infrastructure elements Wellington City may fall behind other Using a programme business case in which within the programme will have competitor cities as a result of the transport all agencies are well coordinated should long lead times for planning and system not addressing the problems or speed up any pre-construction phases and consenting processes facilitating the opportunities in a timely manner reduce the overall time needed to implement the investment programme Ongoing collaborative and integrated business case development, design, consenting and implementation
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 109
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case
Forecasting for large scale Investment in transport system resilience may Align with ongoing resiliency planning natural hazard events is an prove to be insufficient to facilitate timely within the region, including exploring uncertain process recovery following a larger than anticipated appetite for risk event Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be unnecessary if an event does not occur The RPI assumes The opportunity to leverage investment in the Decision points prior to implementation of complementary land use transport system to facilitate urban major infrastructure that will reflect planning changes e.g. district development will be lost monitoring of land use policy plan changes which may not The RPI may not represent a value for money Ongoing collaborative and integrated eventuate investment if it does not facilitate urban business case development, design, generation in the central city and Newtown consenting and implementation
Risk that investment will not be Potential to reinforce Wellington’s Staying flexible in reviewing the programme integrated with shift in technological and innovative reputation is lost to incorporate changing technologies when transport system from Introducing unproven systems may result in they are judged to be sufficiently mature technological advances sub-optimal outcomes or abortive investment A lack of integrated Key elements of the programme may be put on Ongoing collaborative and integrated implementation e.g. resulting hold, undermining the effectiveness of the business case development, design, from opposition to potential programme as a whole consenting and implementation intervention impacts Ongoing engagement and consultation with the public and stakeholders
Resource and/or funding Delaying elements of the programme may make High priority given to maintaining transport constraints may result in it difficult or impossible to satisfactorily manage system performance through early design of programme elements being disruption to the transport system during transport system transformation delayed/deferred construction phases (e.g. closure of lanes to programme element allow mass transit infrastructure construction) There may be pressures to Key elements of the programme may not be Build a high level of support for the change the balance of central implemented, undermining the effectiveness of programme at local, regional and central and local government funding the programme as a whole government levels arrangements over the implementation of the RPI Significant cost of RPI may The Wellington region has a limited ability to The RPI has been developed to be flexible preclude other transport invest in transport projects outside of LGWM to changing transport demand investments in region In announcing LGWM the Minister of Transport has also indicated that there are available funds for other projects in the region.
Actual project costs become Several risks could cause project costs to Undertake robust risk identification as part greater than those forecast and escalate in unforeseen/unaccounted for ways of cost estimation during business case exceed allocated budgets e.g. complex geotechnical conditions phases Use of risk adjusted forecasting as part of budgeting processes
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 110
PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Commercial Case 18. COMMERCIAL CASE Given the scale of LGWM, consideration of commercial implications will be critical as the programme moves closer to implementation. The capacity and capability of industry, both professional services and physical works contractors, will be a significant consideration. There may be a need to take a national and potentially international view as business case development progresses. One example would be opportunities to align with other mass transit projects around New Zealand, potentially creating physical works and cash-flow efficiencies through national coordination. In the more immediate term, there are several risks associated with professional services availability and potential for stakeholder fatigue that may result in a need to stagger business case processes with suitable hold points so that interdependencies can be understood. There are several procurement and financing opportunities presented by the programme. For example, a procurement approach for mass transit may be to adopt an outcome based public private partnership arrangement whereby different tenderers offer different mass transit modes.
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 111
APPENDIX A – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX B – INVESTMENT LOGIC MAP
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX C – INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE KPIS AND RPI ASSESSMENT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX D – NOTE 1: INTERVENTION LONGLIST SCREEN
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX E – NOTE 2: SCENARIO LONGLIST DEVELOPMENT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX F – LONGLIST SCENARIOS MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS REPORT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX G – ENGAGEMENT SCENARIOS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX H – LONGLIST PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP NOTES
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX I – SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS WORKSHOP NOTES
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX J – COST REPORT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX K – ECONOMICS REPORT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX L – INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX M – MONITORING PLAN
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019
APPENDIX N – TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS
Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019