Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review
Post-consultation and Options Report
September 2017
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 5 Purpose of this report 6 PART A: BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION OUTCOMES 7 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Purpose of the Review 7 1.2 Review objectives 8 1.3 The Review Process 8 1.4 Report Limitations 8 2. Public Engagement 9 2.1 Communications Strategy 9 2.1.1 Survey distribution 9 2.1.2 Newspaper Advertisements 10 2.1.3 Posters and Displays 10 2.1.4 Weekend Market 11 2.1.5 Website and Social Media 12 2.1.6 Media 13 2.1.7 Radio Advertising 13 2.2 Stakeholder engagement 14 3. Public Feedback Received 14 4. Survey Respondents Profile: Overview of who provided feedback 14 5. Analysis of survey results 17 5.1 What did people not like about the current services 17 5.2 What did survey respondents like about the current services 19 5.3 What would encourage non-users to use the bus service 20 5.4 All respondents: How could the urban bus service be made better 22 5.5 Infrastructure related feedback 24 5.6 Outcomes from stakeholder meetings 24 5.6.1 Tranzit (current operator) 25 5.6.2 Whanganui District Council 25 5.6.3 Positive Ageing forum 26 5.7 Conclusion 26 PART B – OPTIONS FOR CHANGES 28 6. Potential Options for Changes or Additions to Bus Service 28 6.1 Option 1: Increased weekend services 28 6.2 Option 2: Public holiday services 31 6.3 Option 3: Increased frequency of weekday services (including later services)32 6.4 Option 4: New Bastia Hill/Durie Hill service 35 6.5 Option 5: New Castlecliff / Gonville split 36 6.6 Option 6: Variation to current Aramoho Loop 37 6.7 Option 7: New Hospital / Aramoho Loop 38
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-Consultation and Options Report 3 September 2017
6.8 Option 8: New Putiki Loop 39 6.9 Orbiter routes 40 7 Other potential changes 40 7.1 Timetable layout 40 7.2 Bike racks 40 7.3 Route structure/direction 41 7.4 Promotions 41 7.5 Infrastructure 41 7.6 Conclusion: Options 42 PART C: RECOMMENDATIONS 43 8. Recommended options 43 9. Total cost of recommended changes 47 10. Where to from here? 49
Executive Summary
The current contract for the Whanganui urban bus service is due to expire in December 2018. This review of the Whanganui urban bus service commenced following the Passenger Transport Committee meeting on 21 February 2017 where the concept of the review and establishment of an Advisory Group were confirmed. The scope of the review and public consultation strategy were confirmed at the first Advisory Group meeting on 4 May 2017.
Public consultation to understand the community’s views and possible improvements occurred between 29 May and 14 July 2017. As part of the consultation strategy, surveys were distributed to over 16,431 Whanganui homes, rest homes and libraries. People also had the option of submitting their feedback online. The response rate for this review was good, with 400 responses received. and provided some valuable feedback on the current bus service. Overall it can be concluded that there was a mixed response from the survey respondents with some respondents indicating they are happy with the current services and others identifying shortfalls with the service, which they would like improved. From the survey responses and public feedback received, the following key findings have been identified:
The current timetable confusing and overly complicated. Respondents also noted that access to timetable information is inadequate;
Respondents would like additional weekend services;
Respondents would like services on public holidays;
Respondents would like to see an increased frequency in services; and
Additional services in other areas is desired.
These findings have been considered and cost estimates calculated for implementing the each of the potential changes. Following that, factors such as current patronage, affordability, demand and sample size (of the survey respondents) were assessed to determine what would achieve the greatest return on further investment in respect of patronage uptake and farebox revenue. Having considered these factors, the following improvements are recommended:
Timetable redevelopment; Additional weekend services; Public holiday services; Increased frequency on existing services (up to an additional two services per route per day); and Route variation to the Aramoho orange loop.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 5
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to outline the public consultation process that was undertaken for the Whanganui urban bus service review, present the findings from the consultation period and associated analysis, and propose potential options for improvements to the existing service.
PART A: BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the review
Horizons Regional Council (Horizons) plans, funds and manages public transport services in the Region. As part of this process, Horizons is required by legislation to prepare a Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) that sets the framework for how we provide and develop public transport services and infrastructure in the Region over the next 10 years. It also sets out the public transport1 services that Horizons proposes for the Region and any policies/standards that apply to those services. The current RPTP was adopted in May 2015. The Whanganui urban bus service has been identified as a public transport ‘unit’ in the RPTP and as a service that is integral to the Region’s public transport network2.
All contracted public transport services in the Region are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they operate effectively and efficiently. Minor reviews may be undertaken at any time in response to new developments or other changes3, while more in depth reviews are generally undertaken prior to seeking Council approval to retender a service.
The current contract for the Whanganui urban bus service is due to expire in December 2018. Horizons are taking the opportunity presented by the contract expiry and associated retender process to review the current urban services. The review will undertake targeted consultation to inform Whanganui’s public transport system going forward, with the aim of attracting more bus users and finding operational efficiencies.
The intention is that the review aligns with the following key strategic documents:
Whanganui District Council Urban Transportation Strategy (WUTS); Whanganui District Council Active Transport Strategy; Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP); Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP); Passenger Transport Operating Model (PTOM); and Government Policy Statement (GPS).
1 Public transport in the Horizons Region includes bus services, the Total Mobility scheme, health shuttles and community vans. 2 Section 3.3.1, page 13 RPTP 2015-2025. 3 For example, the Ashhurst to Palmerston North trial service timetable was revised following community feedback and analysis of patronage.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 7
1.2 Objectives of the review
This is not a ‘first principles review’ and as such the RPTP does not require a review of the Whanganui urban services. However, the contract is up for retender in 2018 and given the length of time since the last review (approximately seven years), this is a good opportunity to review the current services. It is also worth noting that a comprehensive review of Whanganui’s urban bus service was undertaken in 2010, which has contributed to this not being treated as a full scale review, rather an opportunity to see where efficiencies and improvements can be made to the service.
The review has been undertaken subject to three guiding principles. These are:
1. Be value for money 2. Promote passenger growth 3. Be supported by the community
1.3 The review process
The review process commenced with the establishment of an Advisory Group who confirmed the terms of reference and scope. Following that public consultation occurred over a seven-week period.
Feedback from the community was analysed and options for change (or no changes) to the service will be presented to the Advisory Group for consideration, which is the foundation of this report.
Following feedback from the Advisory Group, a series of recommendations will be presented to the Passenger Transport Committee for confirmation of the revised service for retender.
This report provides detailed analysis of the public consultation, identification of some possible options for improvement and officers’ recommendations on which of those options are feasible to implement moving forward. The intention is that this report will assist the Advisory Group in presenting the findings of consultation and any recommended changes to the Whanganui urban bus service to the Passenger Transport Committee, which will make the final decision on any changes to be incorporated into the National Land Transport Programme and tender process.
1.4 Report limitations
With any survey based report there are limitations:
Survey respondents were self-selecting. Rather than targeted or strategic sampling, surveys were sent out to 16,431 Whanganui City households. Those who voluntarily responded may have done so because changes would affect them, or have an interest in public transport. This may have resulted in the survey appealing to current bus users. For this reason, this report is written in a way to identify non-user views and preferences as well as current bus user preferences. In many cases, the preferences were very similar. Data errors are present in some of the surveys where the respondent has misinterpreted the questions on the survey and has not ranked their preferences
as requested. In some cases, bus users have also filled out the section targeted at non-users. Therefore, inferences about the data have been made based on the trends (and supplementary comments) rather than detailed quantitative analysis. Data collected is limited to the questions asked in the survey. As with the above limitation, inferences about the data have been made based on the trends (and supplementary comments) rather than detailed quantitative analysis.
2. Public Engagement
2.1 Communications strategy
The review’s third guiding principle is to ensure that the service is supported by the community. This includes support from current users of the service, as well as the general public who will partly pay for the service through their transport scheme rates and are potential future users of the system.
In order to target as many sectors of the community as possible, a consultation strategy was developed with the following key objectives:
1. Establish the most appropriate consultation strategy to ensure public engagement on the review and provision of valuable information on the community’s desires and needs; and 2. Make it easy for people to give feedback in order to ensure the final decision regarding the Whanganui urban bus service reflects the desires of both current and potential future bus users. Objective 2 was key because the review is also about understanding non-users reasons for not using public transport. If we are able to understand why they choose not to use public transport, it may be possible to change existing systems so they become users.
The public consultation period ran over the course of seven weeks starting on 29 May 2017 and ending on 14 July 2017. The following strategies were used to target as wide an audience as possible.
2.1.1 Survey distribution
A paper survey was distributed to the letterbox of all residential households in Whanganui (16,431) on 10 and 11 June 2017. The survey was set out in a questionnaire format with a freepost section on the back. Copies of the survey were also made available on buses for passengers to take. Surveys were distributed to the Central Library, Gonville Library, various rest homes, and Whanganui District Council.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 9
Figure 1: Sample of paper survey
2.1.2 Newspaper advertisements
A quarter page advertisement notifying the community of the review and providing an opportunity for the public to have their say by completing and returning a survey form was run in two papers. The insert ran in The River City Press and Wanganui Midweek papers, which are delivered free to 18,900 and 20,849 households respectively within Whanganui.
A second advertisement was run in the River City Press on 5 July and in the Wanganui Midweek on 12 July to remind the community of the ability to have their say on the bus services and to advise of the extended closing date for feedback (moved from 7 July to 14 July).
All advertisements contained the same graphics and colours as the survey and posters to ensure continuity and help viewers connect the two visually.
2.1.3 Posters and displays
Posters were created and displayed on all urban buses, bus shelters around the city, and in public spaces including the i-Site, Horizons’ offices, public libraries, Tranzit depot and UCOL.
Figure 2: sample of poster
2.1.4 Weekend market
Horizons held a stand at the Whanganui River Traders Market during the consultation period. This enabled transport staff as well as Horizons’ political representatives to raise public awareness of the review and and encourage people to have their say. Copies of the newspaper advertisements, the survey and maps of the current bus routes formed part of the display.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 11
Figure 3: Photo of Horizons’ stall at the River Traders Market
2.1.5 Website and social media
Information about the feedback process and links to the survey were made available via Horizons’ website and social media pages. The poster and link to the survey was also run on Whanganui District Council’s website. A media release was distributed within the public consultation period (29 May–14 July), which promoted the survey on the Horizons website, Facebook and Twitter. Horizons’ communications team also made contact with social media managers at other organisations including Whanganui District Council to request their assistance in raising awareness of the consultation amongst their followers.
The public had the ability to make comments either via social media as a comment/retweet on the post, or by clicking through the online survey form hosted on Horizons’ and Whanganui District Council’s websites.
Facebook advertising was also used throughout the consultation period. Over this time two Facebook posts were made. The first promoted the consultation period, and was then updated to advise of the extended period from 7 July to 14 July. The post was ‘boosted’ over 25 days (ending 23 June) and reached 2,254 people with 89 engagements. The second post promoted the stall at the River Traders Market and the opportunity for public to talk directly with transport staff and councillors. This post reached over 2,000 people with no ‘boost’.
Figure 4: Image of Facebook advertising
The Whanganui urban bus services review page (on Horizons’ website) was visited 318 times throughout the consultation period. There were 798 visits to the survey itself, of which 69 surveys were completed and submitted online. The page visits were much higher than the number of completed surveys. This is likely, in part, due to issues with the usability of the original online survey available in the first week of consultation. Staff received multiple complaints during this time about the usability of the original survey and consequently, within a week of the consultation period commencing, the survey was replaced with a survey generated via SurveyMonkey, which was embedded into the Horizons website.
2.1.6 Media
A media release was sent to all local media on 29 May with information about the review and how people could have their say. A second media release will likely be issued in the coming months with information on the total number of surveys received and an explanation of the next steps in the process.
The media release was made available on Horizons’ website.
2.1.7 Radio advertising
Radio advertising during the period 5–17 June ran across three stations, (The Hits, ZM, Newstalk ZB) selected for their spread of audience demographics. The schedule included 30-second advertisements during the breakfast, morning, afternoon and drive slots for these stations.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 13
Additional radio advertising was run during the period 5–12 July across the same stations reminding the public to have their say before the consultation period end date of 14 July.
2.2 Stakeholder engagement
Meetings were held with three stakeholder groups: the current bus operator (Tranzit), Whanganui District Council and the Positive Ageing Forum. Multiple attempts were made to meet with UCOL representatives (including a student representative) throughout the consultation period, however those nominated to attend these meetings and provide feedback either did not respond or advised they were unable to meet with us due to other commitments.
3. Public Feedback Received
The consultation period intended to gather a wide range of feedback, including how the service could be improved for current users, as well as what would encourage non-bus- users to utilise the services. Feedback was collected via surveys from the general public and during meetings with key stakeholders.
Over the consultation period from 29 May to 14 July, a total of 396 surveys were received. Another four surveys were received after 14 July and have been considered in this report. Three surveys were received after 31 July and subsequently were too late to be considered in the analysis of survey results, however the comments made in these were generally positive towards the existing service.
The feedback received from the surveys has been represented in various ways within this report to highlight the feedback and the most popular requests received. However, this was difficult due to the manner in which respondents had filled out the survey. For example, some respondents ranked their preferences while others didn’t. This meant that the data received needed to be assessed carefully to consider both types of responses to get an accurate picture of what the community is requesting.
In addition to the free-text comments made on the survey forms, two letters and one email were received. These have been analysed and incorporated into the feedback results.
4. Survey Respondents Profile: Overview of who provided feedback
The survey requested information on whether the respondent was a current bus user or a non-user. The survey also asked current bus users to describe how often they utilised the bus service in order to provide an idea of the bus-use habits of current users. Finally, the survey asked respondents to advise which suburb they lived in so that we could get an idea of where the users and non-users resided, which may assist when considering any potential changes to the services or the addition of new services in new areas.
The following graphs and tables have been included to give an idea of who responded (e.g. users and non-users), how often they travel and where the respondents live.
4.1 Current users vs non-users
Of the 400 respondents assessed as part of this report (both online and paper), 241 were current users of Whanganui’s urban bus service and 154 were not current users.
Response rate - current bus users vs non-users
154 bus users non-users 241
Figure 5: Response rate – current bus users vs non-users
4.2 Frequency of travel
The graph below shows how often respondents who use the bus travel on it. Generally, the majority of users travel on the bus at least once a week.
Frequency of bus use 120
100
80
60
40
20
0 Daily At least once a Once a month Once a year week
Figure 6: Frequency of bus use
Note: This data does not match the total number of responses analysed as some respondents did not complete this field in the survey.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 15
4.3 Suburb distribution
The table below shows that the majority of responses were received from people living in the suburbs of Aramoho, Whanganui East, Castlecliff, Springvale and Gonville, with the number of responses ranging between 51 and 61 in these suburbs. All of these suburbs have existing bus services. The remaining suburbs were less well represented, ranging between 1 and 18 respondents. Approximately half of these less represented suburbs have existing services and half do not have any services in their suburb.
Figure 7: Suburb distribution (user vs non-user)
Note: this data does not match the total number of respondents as some respondents did not complete this field in the survey.
5. Analysis of the Survey Results
This section provides a general overview of the feedback from the survey respondents. It covers information from both users and non-users of the bus service. The survey data and results presented in the following section need to be viewed with certain limitations in mind. Data errors are present in some of the surveys where respondents have misinterpreted the questions on the survey and have not ranked their preferences as requested. In some cases, bus users have also filled out the section targeted at non-users. Therefore, any tables or graphs shown below are included for the purpose of giving a general idea of the trends. Any inferences about the data have been made based on the trends and supplementary comments provided by respondents.
The survey asked respondents to identify whether or not they were current bus users. By distinguishing whether respondents were current bus users or non-users, we can identify and record preferences for both of these groups. It is important to separate out the preferences of these two groups because they each have different factors driving their preferences. For example, an existing bus user may prefer the current route structure because it causes the least disruption to their current routine, but a non-user may change their travel choices if the service ran at a different time.
5.1 What people did not like about the current service
The reasons people did not like the bus service were varied but very similar between users and non-users of the service. Below is a summary of the key things respondents did not like about the current services.
Frequency and timing of services
Frequency and timing of services were repeatedly highlighted as a City-wide reason that prevented people using the current bus services. This included a lack of early and late night services, minimal services in Springvale/St Johns Hill, no public holiday services and minimal weekend services. The bus service times were described by many respondents as ‘inconvenient’ and not working with their travel times, particularly if they wanted to visit friends or attend an appointment in another suburb.
A primary request from survey respondents was for public holiday services to be made available and for more weekend services. For many respondents, they stated that the current weekend timetable is too limited for them to be able to visit town or go to the Saturday market. Likewise, respondents identified that for those who have no other means of transport, they are unable to travel on public holidays, which means they are unable to attend events or visit friends/family on days such as Anzac day or over Easter.
City Coverage
Particular areas of Whanganui were identified as lacking good, or any, public transport coverage. Listed below are the areas and number of times they were specifically mentioned in the survey responses as having a lack of bus services:
Springvale and St Johns Hill services (current level of service is too limited) – 27 Hospital services – 4 Some areas in Aramoho (e.g. Liverpool St) – 2
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 17
Bastia Hill – 11 (in combination with Durie Hill) Durie Hill (see Bastia Hill numbers) Putiki – 6 Mosston Road – 3 Route structure and timing
A number of comments indicated the current routes work well for some, however other comments highlighted that more frequent services, late night services, public holiday services and weekend services are much needed improvements. This was especially important for those that do not work the typical working week, including part-timers, casual staff, shift workers and weekend employees.
Some non-users commented that they do not use the bus because the routes are not direct enough and require users to travel on a scenic tour around the suburbs to get to the bus terminal. For some, this was considered time wasting and inconvenient, however many others considered the route duration acceptable.
Comments included that it is reasonably easy and quick to drive to most areas in Whanganui and parking in the CBD is cheap (and in some cases free). Alternatively, others found the layout of Whanganui makes it just as easy to walk or bike to their destinations, especially those that mentioned they lived close to the city centre. For the trips that couldn’t be made by foot or bicycle, or when the weather was wet, they tended to comment that they would drive to their destination.
Timetables
An overwhelming number of responses noted that the current timetable and routes are overly complicated. This is compounded by the alternating route structure of the services that some respondents find confusing and difficult to understand when planning their journey.
Feedback from surveys identified that many find the timetables complex and the maps hard to understand. The timetables list the departure time of the bus, and the arrival time at outer terminals and destinations. It was noted by respondents that users have to guess when a bus is due at a particular bus stop. Respondents requested more detailed timetabling to display approximate times of arrival at bus stops around the city to take the guess work out of catching a bus.
Others noted that without an aproximate time that the bus was going to arrive at that particular stop, there was confusion about what side of the road they should stand on to catch that particular service.
A number of respondents also noted that accessibility to timetable information is poor and some non-users were questioning where to find out about the bus services.
Maintaining levels of service
Many respondents commented that they often see buses near empty on some off-peak services. While peak services may reach full capacity, having frequent services running throughout the day is important for maintaining a level of service, or a base service. Suggestions also included having a second smaller bus fleet to service off-peak times. However, the cost of purchasing, running and maintaining two bus fleets is
uneconomical and leaves the large capacity buses idle at the depot when only used for peak times.
In addition, a number of responses noted dissatisfaction with the quality of the buses, stating that in many cases the windows are fogged up in winter, buzzers don’t work and the buses are uncomfortable. Some responses also noted that there was nowhere to store/hang pushchairs or walking frames, sometimes making the bus crowded in peak times.
A small number of respondents also commented on the level of overcrowding on buses at peak times, especially around school times, and requested that an additional bus be provided or school children to be required to use an alternative bus.
Infrastructure
A significant number of responses were received expressing dissatisfaction with the level of infrastructure on the bus routes. Comments covered matters such as:
Bus stop information being inadequate, e.g. no times, prices, routes, minimal information being available, and no timetables at bus stops; Bus stop signs faded, facing the wrong way, in the wrong place, difficult to find and not obvious; Lack of bus shelters; More seats needed at bus stops; Stops and shelters dirty and unsafe; Not enough bus stops; and The terminal is too far away from the CBD and other amenities.
5.2 What people like about the current service
There were a large number of positive responses regarding the current bus service. Many respondents praised the ‘friendly, polite and helpful drivers’ and were very satisfied with the overall service. Things respondents like about the current service include:
Bus Users:
Number of bus stops; Route structure and frequency; The bus drivers; Service is free for SuperGold card holders; Service generally keeps to time and is reliable; There is a school service; That there is a service at all; Being able to meet and chat with others on the bus; and Comfortable, clean buses.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 19
Non-users
Friendly drivers; Service is there if they ever need it in the future; It is available to those who need it; The service appears to get well used; and There is a school service.
5.3 What would encourage non-users to use the bus service
Question 4 of the survey asked non-users to identify what would encourage them to use the bus and to rank their choices from most important to least important. As well as non-users, many current bus users filled out this section of the survey and many respondents did not rank their preferences, but only ticked the box. The survey data is therefore a bit skewed but nevertheless gives an idea of what improvements would encourage people to use the bus service.
The most requested changes to encourage people to use the bus are better access to timetable information, more frequent services, services closer to where they want to travel to and from, and more frequent services. The least preferred changes were cheaper fares and shorter trips. On the whole the responses were fairly evenly spread between all of the requested changes.
The requests for services in areas that were closer to where they wanted to travel to and from were varied and often covered areas where there is already a service but possibly not a stop close enough nearby. Responses requested services closer to the following locations:
The CBD, doctors and supermarkets; Cornfoot St (in Castlecliff/Gonville); Whanganui East; Upper Victoria Ave; The beach; Airport; Durie Hill; Bastia Hill; Putiki; Mosston Road; Kai iwi; Webb Road and Cullinane College; College Estate; The hospital; Somerset Road;
Great North Road to Virginia Lake to Montgomery Road; and Dublin St Bridge (note this used to be part of the route structure but had to be changed due to weight restrictions on the bridge).
The following two graphs show the distribution of requests from non-users about what would encourage them to use the service. The two graphs need to be considered together because one demonstrates which options were ticked the most and the other defines the preferences by ranking. This is an attempt to show the preferences for those that ranked their preferences and those that just ticked their preferences.
Incentives for non bus users
services that are closer to where 61 you want to travel to and from
better access to timetable 58 information
more frequent services 54
earlier/later services 37
cheaper fares 17
shorter trips 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 8: Survey question, What would encourage people to use the bus service?’
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 21
Figure 9: Ranking of what would encourage non-users to use the bus service
5.4 All respondents: How could the urban bus service be improved
Question 5 of the survey was aimed at all survey respondents. It asked respondents to identify how the bus service could be improved and to rank their choices from most important to least important. As with question 4, a large number of respondents ticked the boxes and did not rank their choices, however the information collected still provides a useful trend on suggested improvements to current services.
The most requested improvement (by those who ticked the boxes rather than ranking their preferences) was more weekend services, closely followed by better access to timetable information, clearer and easier to read timetables and public holiday services.
Of those who ranked their preferences, the highest ranked preference was better access to timetable information, followed by clearer and easier to read timetables, services in other areas, more weekend services and public holiday services. The option ranked least important was the ability to carry bikes on the bus.
It can be concluded from the two response types that timetable structure, access to timetable information, more weekend services and public holiday services are what the survey respondents consider important improvements to the current service.
Suggestions from all respondents
more weekend services 63
better access to timetable 57
clear/understandable timetable 53
public holiday services 47
services in other areas 34
more stops 33
carry bikes on buses 22
shorter/quicker routes 20
fewer stops 8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 10: Requests for improvements to service
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 23
Figure 11: Ranking of improvements from most important to least important
5.5 Infrastructure related feedback
As noted in section 5.1, a number of respondents provided comments on the current infrastructure. On the whole, it appears that members of the community find the current level of information at bus stops and the stops themselves inadequate for various reasons.
Infrastructure is not something covered by this review, however given the number of comments in the responses relating to infrastructure, it is prudent to cover it and highlight this as an area for improvement outside of the review process.
5.6 Outcomes from stakeholder meetings
Meetings were held with two stakeholder groups on 19 June. Staff also attended a Positive Ageing Forum on 21 June to discuss the review and seek feedback from attendees. The following section summarises the feedback received at these meetings.
5.6.1 Tranzit (current operator)
Staff met with Sam Stairmand, the manager for Tranzit Whanganui. Tranzit are the current operators for the Whanganui bus service. The following points were raised in the meeting:
There is a residential area around Liverpool Street that isn’t captured by any service. Sam advised that the Aramoho orange loop could easily be deviated to capture residents in this area without adding too much extra time to the service; Time/Frequency: Sam noted that people find the 5:10pm service hard to catch when finishing work at 5:00pm. A later service was suggested to address this problem; Sam noted that the Castlecliff and Aramoho loops are well utilised; Springvale/St Johns Hill: It was stated that this service is not capturing enough people and could be better utilised (particularly by the younger demographic) if the timetable was changed and more services added; Sam advised that there is a new subdivision in Springvale and development happening in the Brunswick area; A school bus service would be helpful for Cullinane College students; Sam noted that there is no service up Bastia Hill or Durie Hill. It was advised that a 22-seater bus could operate to provide a service for residents in these areas; Noted that the hospital services are limited; The alternating loop system makes the timetable confusing and a one-way system would simplify the timetable; The terminal location works fine; Suggested a possible alternating loop in the mornings for Castlecliff or a new ‘express’ service to shorten the routes for both Castlecliff and Aramoho; There is no service to Putiki. Suggested a system where a 22-seater is used for Bastia Hill and Durie Hill (as noted above) and then travels out to Putiki; Noted that the large 40-seater buses are required to deal with demand over peak times; and Considered that there was not a regular enough need for trips to the airport and an airport service is therefore not warranted. The plane is only a 33-seater that operates four times per day.
5.6.2 Whanganui District Council
A meeting was held with three Whanganui District Council staff members on 19 June. The following points were highlighted during the meeting:
The current InterCity/Tranzit depot is located some distance from the CBD with no bus link into the City, which means there is minimal opportunity for InterCity passengers to connect to the urban services. There is also a safety issue for those who arrive in the evening when it is dark. WDC would like to move the InterCity services closer to the urban services in order to provide a better and
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 25
safer connection between the two. This may also increase patronage on the urban services; WDC are intending to keep the current bus depot in its current location and future proof the depot; WDC have signaled in their town centre plan that they are looking at moving the taxi depot so it links with the buses; Noted that the service departing at 5:10pm does not allow sufficient time for people finishing work at 5pm to catch it. There needs to be a later service; Noted that there are no Bastia Hill and Durie Hill services; It would be useful if the Aramoho service covered the courthouse area by Victoria Ave and Ridgeway St; Noted that increased weekend services are needed; Bike racks: Unsure whether bike racks would be well utilised due to current patronage type. A trial was suggested; and City growth: Mosston Road area is earmarked for residential development and Fitzherbert Ave is to be extended under the next Long-term Plan. Given the length of time until this is likely to happen, services out this way are not warranted. This is something to consider for the future.
5.6.3 Positive Ageing Forum
Staff members attended the Positive Ageing Forum held in Whanganui on 21 June. The Positive Ageing Forum is a group that was formed in 2003 for the purpose of bringing together organisations that have an interest in older people in Whanganui. Meetings are held four times per year.
Officers from Horizons provided an overview of the review process and explained why Horizons is reviewing the service. The following comments were received from the group:
Pensioner housing: Happy with the current level of stops but noted that tenants complain about the timing of the buses and length of time between services; Another member questioned why such big buses were used during off-peak times and suggested using smaller buses to reduce the cost and environmental impact; No Sunday services: a member of the group indicated that they would like to see Sunday services provided, particularly to the hospital; and The Castlecliff 8:00am and 3:00pm services are very full due to school students. It was noted that these students often didn’t give their seats up and older people were required to stand.
5.7 Conclusion
The response rate for this review was good and provided some valuable feedback on the current bus service. Overall it can be concluded that there was a mixed response from the survey respondents with some respondents indicating they are happy with the current services and others identifying shortfalls with the service, which they would like
improved. Following analysis of the feedback received during the consultation period, the following findings are observed:
Better weekend services are requested. Weekend services are limited, so this is something that should be investigated; Public holiday services are requested. There are no public holiday services in Whanganui, which is at odds with other urban services Horizons provides. It also means that the Whanganui community can have up to three days with no public transport services; Increased frequency of services. This request is not just limited to one area but City-wide; Survey respondents requested better coverage in other areas; The timetables are confusing and overly complicated. Given the high number of responses stating this, consideration needs to be given to redeveloping the timetables; Access to timetable information is limited. In response to this, consideration needs to be given to better timetable information at stops, more availability of timetable information at key public places and more promotion of the service and where to find information; and Bus stop infrastructure is inadequate.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 27
PART B: OPTIONS FOR CHANGE
This section is a considered assessment of changes or improvements that would address the findings noted in part A of this report. The preliminary assessment that follows is reasonably raw and uses the best information currently at hand, being patronage data from the previous 12 months and rough order costs.
6. Potential Options for Changes or Additions to the Bus Service
The following section provides some potential options for changes to the Whanganui urban bus service following feedback from the community and stakeholders. The options have been developed for consideration by the Advisory Group and include analysis of the following:
Patronage data from 2016 (where relevant); Census data (where relevant) to give an idea of population density and demographics for various suburbs; and Cost estimates for each option. To provide context, the current contract for the existing service for the 2016/17 year totaled $625,496. The current contract cost per kilometre is $2.62. The annual kilometres travelled totaled 238,500. In estimating the costs for each option below, three scenarios have been provided: the low cost (representing the lower end of the scale), the current per kilometre cost based on the current contract, and a higher estimated cost based on the current contract +15%. This is to provide a more conservative estimate in the event that competition (or lack of) through the next tender process drives the per kilometre cost above the current contract amount.
The costs provided in this report are gross costs and therefore eligible for NZTA subsidy of 51% if approved for inclusion in the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).
NOTE: The costs provided in this report are indicative and based on a per kilometre rate only. The costs do not take into account travel times and therefore peak vehicle requirements that can add to costs. Nor has there been any consideration to timetabling, connection to other routes and providing a cohesive, connected network. Each option has been considered in isolation. Competition (or lack of) at tender time will have an impact on the final price.
6.1 Option 1: Increased weekend services
Given the high level of feedback requesting increased weekend services, consideration of this option is warranted. Cost estimates have been based on increasing Saturday services under two scenarios and also providing limited Sunday services. This option has been broken into three sub-options.
Option 1.1: Additional Saturday service based on existing urban route (each route would have six Saturday services).
Currently, Castlecliff has four Saturday services, Whanganui East has two, and the combined Saturday service for Aramoho and Springvale runs three times over the course of the day.
Under this option, Castlecliff, Whanganui East and the combined service for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns would run six times each on a Saturday.
This option would result in an additional 9,178 kms per year and an additional cost of $24,046.00 per year under the current contract cost or $27,718.00 per year under the higher cost scenario.
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Additional Saturday services per the existing urban routes (each route would have six 9,178 $ 22,945 $ 24,046 $ 27,718 Saturday services)
Option 1.2: Replacing the current combined Saturday service with separate Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns service
This option involves splitting the current combined Saturday service that covers the Springvale/St Johns and Aramoho routes into two separate routes. This option covers the additional cost of splitting the service into two separate services running at a frequency of three times per day for each service. The intention would be for the Saturday routes to mimic the Monday–Friday route coverage for Springvale/St Johns and Aramoho. A lesser route frequency has been estimated for these routes due to uncertainty on demand and patronage uptake. The services could be increased by way of variation to the contract if the services were well utilised and demand justified an increase.
This option does not address costs associated with the other Saturday services provided for Castlecliff and Whanganui East. It only estimates the costs associated with splitting the combined Saturday service into two separate services that each run three times on Saturdays. If the frequency of other Saturday services for Castlecliff and Whanganui East were to be increased, the costs of that and this option would need to be combined.
The foundation for this option comes from some of the feedback provided by survey respondents that indicated that the combined Saturday service for Springvale/St Johns and Aramoho is too long. Patronage data from 2016/17 shows that this loop is not particularly well patronised with a total of 1,335 trips over the 12 month period. Patronage on this service has been variable over the previous 12 months, with numbers dropping between August–November 2016 and then picking up over the December 2016–February 2017 period. Since February 2017, patronage has declined considerably with very low numbers of people using the service. The trend shown in the graph below indicates a seasonal trend with people using the service less during
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 29
the winter months, however the difference in numbers between July 2016 (155) and June 2017 (82) is indicative of an overall decline in the use of this service. Splitting the combined Saturday service into two separate services for Springvale/St Johns and Aramoho will reduce the travel time and may improve patronage on this service.
2016 Combined Saturday Total Passenger Numbers
180
160 155
144 140 140
125 120 121 114 115 109 100 95
80 82 75
60 60
40
20
0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month
Figure 12: Combined Saturday passenger numbers July 16–June 17
Splitting the combined Saturday service into two services would result in an additional 5,273 km travelled, subsequently increasing the costs by approximately $13,815 (based on current contract cost) or $15,924 (based on current price + 15% cost).
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Replacing current combined Saturday service with separate Aramoho and Springvale St 5,273 $ 13,182 $ 13,815 $ 15,924 Johns services that run 3 x per day
Option 1.3: Sunday services
Presently, there are no bus services available on Sundays. At this stage it is unclear whether Sunday services would be well utilised, however some survey responses and stakeholders requested Sunday services so costs have been provided below based on two services per day. The two options present the costs of providing a Sunday service that is based on the Saturday timetable. This is split into two scenarios, one being based on the current route structure (which includes the combined Saturday route) and the second being based on a ‘new’ route structure that splits the current combined Saturday route into two separate routes for Whanganui East and Springvale/St Johns Hill.
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current contract Current price Low cost OPTIONS cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Sunday services x 2 (based on current Saturday timetable with combined service 6,438 $ 16,095 $ 16,867 $ 19,442 for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns) Sunday services x 2 (based on split Aramoho 7,134 $ 17,835 $ 18,691 $ 21,544 and Springvale/St Johns services)
6.2 Option 2: Public holiday services
Currently no public holiday services are provided in Whanganui. This can mean that the community can have up to three days in a row with no services. For example this year, Christmas and Boxing Day are on a Monday and Tuesday, which with no Sunday service means the Whanganui community will have three days with no bus services available. The exclusion of public holiday services is inconsistent with other services that Horizons operates in the Region. Palmerston North, Massey, Ashhurst-Palmerston North commuter, and Feilding to Palmerston North all have public holiday services that run to a Saturday timetable. The intention would be to align any public holiday services in Whanganui with the Saturday timetable as is the case with other services in the Horizons Region.
The costs associated with providing a public holiday service in Whanganui that runs to the Saturday timetable have been estimated using three scenarios as follows:
Based on the current timetable (with the combined Saturday service and no increase in services); Based on a new Saturday timetable (six services on all routes, including a separate Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns service); and Based on increased Saturday services (six) for the current routes, including a combined Saturday service for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns Hill.
The costs are shown in the following table:
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 31
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km OPTIONS Current Current price *note: all options are running to a Saturday Low cost contract cost plus 15% timetable, so costs are dependent on what $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km that timetable is Public holiday services on all urban routes 1,559 $ 3,898 $ 4,085 $ 4,709 (based on current Saturday timetable) Public holiday services on all urban routes (six services based on current Saturday timetable 2,971 $ 7,428 $ 7,784 $ 8,972 routes, incl. combined Saturday) Public holiday services on all urban routes (based on new Saturday timetable with six 3,293 $ 8,232 $ 8,627 $ 9,944 services and separate Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns)
6.3 Option 3: Increased frequency of weekday services (including later services)
One of the questions directed at non-users (question 4 in the survey) was whether increased frequency would encourage them to use the bus services. A number of current users also filled out this section of the report, with a total of 54 respondents selecting ‘more frequent services’ as something that would encourage them to use the bus service. This was the second highest ranked option within question 4. A number of comments were also received requesting more frequent services, in particular a later service to accommodate workers (the latest service is at 5:10pm, which respondents commented is too hard to get to when finishing at 5:00pm) and additional services on the Springvale/St Johns Hill route where the latest service runs at 2:10pm.
Providing an additional service or two per day to accommodate workers is logical. Patronage data from the 16/17 year shows that patronage on all routes is generally dominated by child (including school children), SuperGold and beneficiary fares. Providing some later (and earlier) services may enable more workers to use the services and increase the adult fare type.
2016 Percentage of fare types across all services
1% 0%
2% 10%
26%
11%
23%
27%
SuperGold Child Ben Adult UCOL Senior Student Under 5
Figure 13: 12 month fare type data for 2016/17 patronage
Eighty-six responses were received from people on the Springvale/St Johns Hill route. In total 27 respondents requested an increased frequency of services and later services in this suburb. The remaining responses regarding this service included various requests or comments relating to infrastructure and buses (e.g. requesting smaller buses for the service) and clearer timetables. Historically, there were additional services in Springvale/St Johns Hill but these have been progressively scaled back over time due to low patronage.
Data from 2016 shows the Springvale route to have the lowest patronage (excluding the school services and combined Saturday service) of all the urban services. This will in part be due to the limited services available in this area but it can also be concluded that the service is not well utilised and any increases to frequency need to be considered carefully. Typically this route is patronised by SuperGold card holders (who make up 67% of the fare type). This could be due to the timetable that suits SuperGold card holders better than workers or students, but it could also be due to the demographics of this area. The Springvale, St Johns Hill and Otamatea areas typically
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 33
have a higher proportion of older residents (60+) than younger residents, with 30–39% of each suburb being represented by the 60+ age group4.
Costs of providing additional services:
The costs of providing either one or two additional weekday services to each route have been estimated. The costs are based on the existing route structures in the current timetable.
To provide a comparison, costs have also been estimated for the option of providing an additional two services per day on selected routes only. The selected routes are Castlecliff and Aramoho. Patronage data indicates that these were the two most utilised services in 16/17 with the highest number of adult fares (14% for Castlecliff and 13% for Aramoho). Patronage data for Castlecliff shows high usage in the morning between 7:30am and 11:00am and again at 3:00pm. The morning peak is not matched by the evening services with about half the number of passengers on the 4:00pm and 5:10pm services. This could be due to the later evening times not suiting workers and passengers seeking an alternative method of transport home. The Aramoho loop shows a slightly different pattern with the 7:00am and 7:30am services being poorly used and the 8:00am and 9:00am services having much higher patronage. The highest number of passengers is seen on the 3:00pm service. The 4:00pm and 5:10pm services are not as well utilised. In terms of survey response, the largest number of responses were received from people living in the suburbs covered by these two routes and ‘more frequent services’ was ranked as the second most important change requested by non-users. A number of comments were also received requesting increased services in various areas of the City as well as requests for additional services to the hospital, which this option would in part provide for (i.e. by increasing the number of services on the Castlecliff route the number of services to the hospital will increase).
The cost of adding extra services to the Springvale/St Johns Hill route has also been calculated. The scenario tested for Springvale/St Johns is for an increase in frequency by four services per day (Monday–Friday). This would align the Springvale/St Johns Hill service with the other services in Whanganui.
An alternative option is to add one extra service to the Springvale/St Johns Hill around 2:55pm to add an extra trip that could be utilised by SuperGold card holders. Given the older demographic of this suburb and the dominance of SuperGold fares over the 12 month 16/17 year (67%), adding one more service within the 9:00am–3:00pm period may provide the best value for money and increase in patronage on this service.
4 Based on information sourced from Whanganui District community profile that is based on 2013 census data www.profile.idnz.co.nz.
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Extra 2 x weekday services per existing urban 34,300 $ 85,750 $ 89,866 $ 103,586 route Extra 1 x weekday service as per the existing 17,150 $ 42,875 $ 44,933 $ 51,793 urban route Extra 2 x weekday services on Castlecliff and 20,550 $ 51,375 $ 53,841 $ 62,061 Aramoho routes only Extra 4 x weekday services on Springvale only 14,700 $ 36,750 $ 38,514 $ 44,394 Extra 1 x weekday service on Springvale only 3,675 $ 9,187 $ 9,628 $ 11,098
6.4 Option 4: New Bastia Hill/Durie Hill service
Currently there are no services on Bastia Hill or Durie Hill. In the past there was a Durie Hill service but this was removed due to low patronage. A new Bastia Hill and Durie Hill service was suggested by both the bus operator and Whanganui District Council at the stakeholder meetings.
A total of 21 surveys were received from residents of Bastia Hill and Durie Hill, totalling 2.86% and 2.6% respectively. In total 11 respondents requested services in the Bastia Hill and Durie Hill areas.
In terms of population demographics, the Bastia Hill, Durie Hill and Putiki suburbs make up 5.75% of the total population of Whanganui, based on 2013 census data5. The Bastia Hill, Durie Hill and Putiki suburbs have a larger percentage of older workers and pre-retirees (50–59) and ‘empty nesters’ and retirees (60–69) than other suburbs in the Whanganui District. Forecasts for these suburbs indicate a slight growth in population with the predominant age group predicted to be 50–59 years by 20286. Note: Bastia Hill, Durie Hill and Putiki have been grouped together in the survey analysis undertaken by IDNZ for Whanganui District Council.
Also of note, is that Durie Hill has an underground elevator that connects Anzac Parade with the top of Durie Hill (where the war memorial tower is located). The elevator costs $2 each way and is open from 8:00am–6:00pm on weekdays and 10:00am–5:00pm on weekends and public holidays. The Whanganui East service travels past the elevator entrance, however there are no stops along this stretch of Anzac Parade. The possibility of putting a bus stop near the tunnel entrance on Anzac Parade in order for the Whanganui East service to connect to the elevator is limited. The tunnel entrance is located approximately 10 metres from the Anzac Parade/City bridge lights and the road has double-lanes on either side at this point. Therefore
5 Based on information from profile.idnz.co.nz that provides analysis on Census data from 2013 and comparisons against previous census data (e.g. 2001 and 2006). 6 Based on information from forecast.idnz.co.nz that has predicted trends for Whanganui District Council based on current census data.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 35
locating a bus stop here would likely be problematic for both safety and traffic flow reasons.
The above investigations show minimal appetite for a Bastia Hill/Durie Hill service and the demographics of the area indicate that it would potentially not be well utilised. However, in the interest of getting an indication of how much providing this service may cost, estimates have been calculated based on running four services per weekday, one service on Saturday and one service on public holidays.
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km New Bastia Hill/Durie Hill route (Mon-Sat, 9,540 $ 23,850 $ 24,995 $ 28,811 includes public holidays)
6.5 Option 5: New Castlecliff/Gonville split
Currently the Castlecliff (pink and blue) route covers both the Castlecliff and Gonville suburbs and also stops at the hospital. The Castlecliff route is the longest at 22 km (excluding the combined Saturday service) and takes approximately 58 minutes to complete. Throughout the consultation process, meetings with stakeholders highlighted the opportunity to look at splitting the Castlecliff loop into two separate routes to make it quicker, get better coverage of the Gonville area and provide more frequent services via the hospital. The added benefit of splitting these two services and making the routes shorter would be that connections to other routes may become easier. Currently patrons of other services connect to the Castlecliff service in order to get to the hospital, however due to the timetable this can make for a very long return trip as noted by a few of the survey respondents.
The Castlecliff service operates 13 services per weekday. If the route was split into a new Castlecliff direct and a Gonville route, the cost is calculated on the basis of keeping the level of the service the same, i.e. 13 services for the Gonville route and 13 for the Castlecliff route.
The survey responses from respondents in the Castlecliff and Gonville areas and those who were commenting on the Castlecliff route were generally pretty positive. Users appear to appreciate the service and do not have an issue with the coverage. There were a few comments from respondents about providing additional services to the hospital and covering other areas of the Gonville suburb but these were the minority. The majority of respondents requested later services or increased frequency (half- hourly services). Others had comments relating to infrastructure, e.g. stops, shelters and the bus facilities.
The Castlecliff route is the most utilised of all the services and patronage is steady. This indicates that the current route structure probably suits the needs of this suburb and any changes to the route structure would need to be carefully considered so as to not result in a decline in patronage for this service.
If the service was to be split into two separate routes, the costs would be as follows:
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km New Castlecliff/Gonville split loop (Mon-Sat, 97,720 $ 244,300 $ 256,026 $ 295,114 includes public holidays)
6.6 Option 6: Variation to current Aramoho loop
The current Aramoho loop misses out a section of residential dwellings on the CBD side of the Whanganui River, circled in red on the map below.
Figure 14: Section of residential dwellings not covered by the Aramoho service
This gap was highlighted to transport staff in a meeting with members of the community shortly before the review process commenced. The issue was also raised at stakeholder meetings with the current operator and Whanganui District Council. In terms of the survey responses, there was limited request for services in this area but a couple of respondents did note the lack of services here.
This option addresses the possibility of altering the orange loop of the Aramoho service to cover this area. This option would be cost neutral, as the change to cover the area would be almost exactly the same distance as the existing orange Aramoho loop.
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current contract Current price Low cost OPTIONS cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Aramoho route variation (cost neutral) - $ - $ - $ -
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 37
6.7 Option 7: New hospital/Aramoho loop
Currently, the only service to the hospital is the Castlecliff service, which mostly runs hourly except for the early morning and lunch time services which run half-hourly. A small number of survey respondents commented on the long journey times to get to the hospital for appointments or visiting patients and requested more frequent services. The option of additional hospital services was also raised at the stakeholder meeting with the current bus operator. When considering the request for a quicker hospital service together with the gap in the Aramoho service (described above under Option 6), it was clear that there was a possibility to combine these two areas into a new service. The purpose of this service would be to provide an additional service to the hospital as well as providing coverage to areas within the Aramaho and College Estate areas where there is a gap currently. The indicative area of coverage is shown by the black line on the map below.
Figure 15: Concept for new Hospital/Aramoho service
As a starting point, we have estimated 10 services per weekday. The rationale for this is that part of the reason for adding this service would be to increase the frequency of services to the hospital so any new route would need to be reasonably regular. Weekends and public holidays have also been included to account for visiting hours but also to recognise that the service would be providing transport for the Aramoho area.
The costs of this service are estimated as follows:
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km
Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km New Hospital/Aramoho loop (Mon-Sat, 23,290 $ 58,225 $ 61,020 $ 70,336 includes public holidays)
6.8 Option 8: New Putiki loop
Currently there are no services in the Putiki suburb. This is a reasonably small suburb, which in combination with Bastia Hill and Durie Hill suburbs makes up 5.75% of the total population of Whanganui, based on 2013 census data7. The Bastia Hill, Durie Hill and Putiki suburbs have a larger percentage of older workers and pre-retirees (50–59) and ‘empty nesters’ and retirees (60–69) than other suburbs in the Whanganui District. This option covers provision of a limited school service, two services in the morning and two in the afternoon.
Four surveys were received from residents of Putiki and a total of six respondents requested services to and from the Putiki suburb. The population demographic is described above and indicates the largest group in these areas to be older workers, pre-retirees and retirees. That being said, feedback the transport team has received (outside the review period) about the need for services in this area has come from people requesting a service to provide transport for school children. The understanding is that this would be to bring children from the CBD to the Putiki Wharanui Kohanga Reo located within Putiki and to take children from Putiki into the CBD to catch connecting services to other schools.
The cost analysis has therefore been developed based on providing two morning school services and two afternoon services that would run during school terms only. Other members of the public would also be able to use this service, however, given the low volume of requests from survey respondents regarding a service in Putiki, additional services to provide for the community have not been investigated further. Consequently, costs for a Putiki service (additional to the school service) have not been calculated.
Estimated costs for two morning and two afternoon school services in Putiki are as follows:
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km New Putiki school route 2,300 $ 5,750 $ 6,026 $ 6,946
7 Based on information from profile.idnz.co.nz that provides analysis on Census data from 2013 and comparisons against previous census data (e.g. 2001 and 2006).
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 39
6.9 Orbiter routes
The Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) has a specific action to Progressively improve urban services, subject to funding availability and demand. Under this action is a list of further actions that are in priority order. Last on the list is an action to investigate orbiter routes in Whanganui. In addition, it is noted that a small number of survey respondents requested City-wide services that would operate in a similar way to an orbiter route.
Consideration has been given to orbiter routes as part of this review and the conclusion is that this option is not worth pursuing. The option of orbiter routes was considered as part of the Palmerston North service review in 2013 and it was found that these sorts of routes are very expensive to run. For example, there would need to be buses running in both directions around the city at a fairly regular frequency, which would tie up a number of buses. In the Palmerston North review, it was found that an additional eight buses would be required to run an effective orbiter route. Obviously Whanganui is smaller and the bus requirement would be less. To provide some context, the current services (excluding school runs) are covered by six vehicles, so if, for example, there were four extra buses required to run the orbiter route, there would be a large jump in expenditure just to provide this service. Given that only a small number of survey respondents requested this type of service and given the potential costs involved, it is considered to be unwarranted to pursue this option further.
7. Other potential changes
7.1 Timetable layout
A large number of respondents commented that the current timetable is complicated and confusing. This is potentially acting as a barrier to people using the bus service and changes to the timetable to make it easier to understand should therefore be investigated. Costs involved with redeveloping timetables vary but the last one completed for Palmerston North City cost $1,800 for the redesign (plus staff time for putting the timetable into the required format). Feedback on the Palmerston North timetables has been positive with recent comments being that it is clear and easy to follow. It is possible that the Palmerston North timetable layout could be used for Whanganui, which would have the added benefits of reducing design costs and providing some continuity between the Region’s two largest centres. It is considered that changes similar to the Palmerston North timetable would be well received. Alternatively, one response highlighted that the Tauranga bus timetable is user-friendly so this layout could also be looked at when considering redevelopment of the Whanganui timetable.
7.2 Bike racks
There was not an overwhelming request for the ability to carry bikes on buses. There were some who ranked this as an improvement of high importance but many either ranked it as low importance or did not tick the box at all. Survey respondents seemed more in favour of having somewhere to store pushchairs and walking frames when the bus is full. This may be telling of the current type of bus users who tend to be elderly and have no such need for the ability to carry bikes but do find barriers such as pushchairs and walking frames in the bus a problem.
That being said, Whanganui District Council has recently approved their Active Transport Strategy that seeks to make active modes of transport such as cycling and walking around the City easier. This may result in cycling becoming more prevalent in the City and resulting in a need for bike racks on the buses. This is an option that could be earmarked for future consideration and bike racks installed at a later date if the need arises.
The cost of bike racks is approximately $3,000 per bike rack. This is based on the cost to purchase 23 bike racks in 2016 when these were installed on some of the Ashhurst and Palmerston North buses. The bike racks come from the U.S so order quantity will affect the final cost.
7.3 Route structure/direction
Given the feedback that the timetables are confusing, thought has also been given to the route structure, in particular the alternating loop system for the current services. Staff considered the possibility of changing the loop direction to a continuous, one-way route, which would simplify the whole system. However this has its challenges. Whanganui’s routes are typically quite long (e.g. both Castlecliff and Aramoho take approximately an hour to complete). If a one-way loop system was implemented, some customers would have a very long commute time without the ability to choose the shorter option. On the whole, the survey respondents didn’t appear to have a problem with the alternating loops system and very few suggested this be changed. Rather most had an issue with the timetable layout and information about the stops. On this basis, it is considered that changing to a one-way loop system is not necessary and has not been investigated further.
7.4 Promotions
A number of responses indicated a desire to have better access to timetable information and other general information about the bus service. Others also wanted better information about the stop locations and times that the bus arrives at each stop. A few responses also highlighted the need for better promotion of the service. This is something that can be looked into in the future and a plan developed on how and where information will be available and how to promote the service to ensure the community is as well informed as possible. The ideal timing for this will be once any changes to the service have been determined and the tender process is complete.
7.5 Infrastructure
While infrastructure changes are not something covered by this review, given the number of comments relating to bus stop infrastructure, including shelters, this is something that needs to be addressed. It is proposed that Horizons and Whanganui District Council work together outside of this process to do a stock take of the current infrastructure and develop a strategy/plan for improving anything found to be below standard.
It may be that continuation of this Advisory Group is the most preferred collaborative approach moving forward to address these issues.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 41
7.6 Conclusion: Options
There are a number of potential options available for changes and improvements to the Whanganui urban bus service. In considering which options to recommend to the PTC the following factors have been taken into account:
Cost of base system (i.e. current) versus proposed cost with additions; Declining patronage both locally and nationally (excluding Auckland and Wellington); Ratepayer implications of any proposed enhancements; NLTP process; Survey sample size relative to the population of Whanganui; and Previous experience with demand and implementation of new services.
PART C: RECOMMENDATIONS
8. Recommended Options
The feedback received on the Whanganui Urban bus network has been good, with 400 responses in total (note: an additional three responses were received too late to be considered as part of this report). The responses were varied and having considered all responses and analysed the data, five key findings have been identified with options to act on these explored and recommendations provided on whether the option should be presented to the PTC or not. The five key findings and subsequent recommendations are:
Key Finding 1:
People find the current timetable confusing and overly complicated. They also state that timetable information is inadequate.
Recommendation: Limited access to information and timetables that are confusing will act as a barrier to people using the service. It is therefore recommended that timetable redevelopment and improved accessibility to timetable information be undertaken as part of this review process. The costs associated with timetable redevelopment are uncertain at this stage however, as an indicator, the recent Palmerston North timetable redevelopment costs totaled $1,800 for the design work. This is considered reasonable.
Key Finding 2
Respondents would like additional weekend services.
Recommendation: Weekend services in Whanganui are limited compared to other urban services. Investigations into increasing the frequency of the weekend services and the possibility of splitting the combined Saturday service into two separate services revealed a moderate increase in costs compared to the current contract.
Additional Recommended ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Y / N Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Additional Saturday services based on the existing urban 9,178 $ 22,945 $ 24,046 $ 27,718 routes (each route would have Yes six Saturday services) Replacing combined Saturday service with separate Aramoho 5,273 $ 13,182 $ 13,815 $ 15,924 No and Springvale/St Johns services Sunday services x 2 (based on No 6,438 $ 16,095 $ 16,867 $ 19,442 current timetable) Sunday services x 2 (based on split Aramoho and Springvale/St 7,134 $ 17,835 $ 18,691 $ 21,544 No Johns services)
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 43
It is therefore recommended that increased Saturday services (to six services per day) be put forward to the PTC for consideration.
The option of splitting the combined Saturday service into a separate service each for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns Hill is not recommended due to cost and uncertainty that demand would result in value for money.
Uptake of Sunday services is not recommended at this stage due to the potential increase in costs and uncertainty relating to demand and potential uptake of the service. In the event that future demand or feedback from the community indicates a need for Sunday services, it could be implemented by way of contract variation.
Key Finding 3
Respondents would like services on public holidays.
Recommendation: There are no public holiday services in Whanganui, which is at odds with other urban services Horizons provides. It also means that the Whanganui community can have up to three days with no public transport services. Investigations into costs associated with adding public holiday services that match the Saturday timetable were tested under three potential scenarios based on whether the Saturday services increase or change from the current structure. The costs associated with adding public holiday services under each scenario are reasonably low.
It is therefore recommended that public holiday services be put forward to the PTC as a change to the current urban services.
Additional Recommended ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Y/N Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Public holiday services on all urban 1,559 $ 3,898 $ 4,085 $ 4,709 No routes (current timetable) Public holidays services on all urban route (new Saturday timetable with 3,293 $ 8,232 $ 8,627 $ 9,944 No no combined Saturday service) Public holiday services on all urban routes (six services on all routes with 2,971 $ 7,428 $ 7,784 $ 8,972 Yes combined Saturday service)
Key Finding 4
Respondents would like to see an increased frequency in services.
Recommendation There are some areas of Whanganui that have limited services as historically there has been very low demand in these areas and services have not been well utilised. In
other areas, respondents are requesting later evening services and some additional early morning services. This may enable workers to use the bus service where they can’t currently and potentially increase patronage.
Investigations into increasing the frequency have been done. Costs vary depending on the option but an increase of two extra trips on all services results in quite a high extra cost. However, if approved for funding by NZTA, 51% of this cost would be subsidised by NZTA therefore reducing Council’s financial contribution to 48%. The addition of two extra services on all existing urban routes would potentially enhance the current patronage due to workers being able to use the bus. This may also capture some non- users who currently do not use the bus due to timetable constraints. It will also address the requests for additional services on the Springvale/St Johns Hill route.
It is therefore recommended that one of the following three scenarios be put forward to the PTC for consideration:
Scenario 1: The addition of two services per weekday on all routes; OR Scenario 2: The addition of one service per weekday on all routes; OR Scenario 3: A combination of an additional two services per weekday on Castlecliff and Aramoho with one extra service per weekday on Springvale/St Johns.
The addition of four extra services to the Springvale/St Johns Hill service is not recommended. Given the low patronage on this service and demographics of this area i.e. retirees, it is unlikely that four extra services per day would be utilised well enough to justify the cost.
Additional Recommended ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Y/N
Current contract cost Current price plus OPTIONS Low cost $2.50 / km $2.62 / km 15% $3.02 / km
Scenario 1: Extra 2 x weekday services per 34,300 $ 85,750 $ 89,866 $ 103,586 See above existing urban route Scenario 2: Extra 1 x weekday service as per 17,150 $ 42,875 $ 44,933 $ 51,793 See above the existing urban route Scenario 3: Extra 1x weekday service on 3,675 $9,187 $9,628 $11,098 See above Springvale only Total: Total: Total: Scenario 3: Extra 2 x $60,562 $63,469 $73,159 weekday services on 20,550 $51,375 $ 53,841 $ 62,061 See above Castlecliff and Aramoho routes only
Extra 4 x weekday services on Springvale 14,700 $ 36,750 $ 38,514 $ 44,394 No only
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 45
Key Finding 5
Services in other areas are requested.
Recommendation: Some areas of Whanganui have no services or are a reasonable distance away from an existing service. Survey responses indicated a desire for services to be provided in these areas or additional services to be available for destinations such as the hospital. Three new routes and two route variations have been considered. The costs of adding each of these services varies depending on the scale of the change and the distance that will need to be travelled.
Given the costs associated with implementing a new Bastia Hill and Durie Hill service, combined with the uncertainty around uptake of such a service, it is not recommended that this service be implemented. Given a previous service in this area was terminated due to low patronage and the demographics of the area, it is unlikely that the cost will be met by demand.
The variation to the Castlecliff/Gonville loop by splitting it into two separate routes is not recommended. The Castlecliff route is the most well-utilised of all the services and patronage is steady. This indicates that the current route structure probably suits the needs of this suburb adequately. Given the high costs associated with this option and the low response requesting change to the route structure, this change is not considered necessary.
The new hospital/Aramoho loop option is not recommended. The costs associated with implementing this service are reasonably high and if this option was to be implemented, it would likely be at the expense of other options such as increased weekend services and public holiday services. The number of requests for increased hospital services was low in comparison to the request for public holiday and increased weekend services. Therefore demand and potential uptake are unlikely to justify the cost of implementing this change. Given there is an alternative option for addressing the Aramoho ‘gap’, which is cost neutral, this option would really only be addressing the requests for additional hospital services. This is something that could be considered in the future if demand or requests increase.
The costs associated with implementing a new Putiki school route are minor, however given the low number of requests for this service and no response received from the school, pursuing this option is not recommended. Further investigations can occur following discussions with the school (Putiki Wharanui Kohanga Reo) prior to the PTC meeting in February 2018 to establish whether there is actually a need for this service.
The variation to the Aramoho orange route to incorporate the residential area on the river side of Glasgow Street is recommended. Implementing this option would be cost neutral, as the change to cover the area would be almost exactly the same distance as the existing orange loop. Incorporating this residential area may result in additional patronage by capturing some non-users located in this area of the City.
Additional Recommended ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Y/N
Current Current price Low cost OPTIONS contract cost plus 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km New Bastia Hill / Durie Hill route No 9,540 $ 23,850 $ 24,995 $ 28,811 (Mon-Sat, includes public holidays) New Castlecliff/Gonville loops (Mon- No 97,720 $ 244,300 $ 256,026 $ 295,114 Sat, includes public holidays) New Hospital/Aramoho loop (Mon- 23,290 $ 58,225 $ 61,020 $ 70,336 No Sat, includes public holidays) New Putiki school route 2,300 $ 5,750 $ 6,026 $ 6,946 No Aramoho route variation as per Tranzit/customer suggestion (cost - $ - $ - $ - Yes neutral)
Recommendations for other options:
Bike racks: This option is not recommended. There was not an overwhelming request for the ability to carry bikes on buses. Survey respondents seemed more in favour of having somewhere to store pushchairs and walking frames when the bus is full. This may be telling of the current type of bus users who tend to be elderly and have no such need for the ability to carry bikes but do find barriers such as pushchairs and walking frames in the bus a problem.
However, Whanganui District Council has recently approved their Active Transport Strategy that seeks to make active modes of transport such as cycling and walking around the City easier. This may result in cycling becoming more prevalent in the City and resulting in a need for bike racks on the buses. This is an option that could be earmarked for future consideration and bike racks installed at a later date if the need arises.
Change route structure/direction: Changing the current alternating loop system to a one-way system is not recommended. On the whole, the survey respondents didn’t appear to have a problem with the alternating loop system and very few suggested this be changed. Rather most had an issue with the timetable layout and information about the stops. On this basis, it is considered that changing to a one-way loop system is not necessary and has not been investigated further.
Infrastructure: It is recommended that ongoing discussions occur separate to this review process to address the issues raised regarding infrastructure. It may be that continuation of this Advisory Group is the most preferred collaborative approach moving forward.
9. Total Cost of Recommended Changes
It is recommended that the following improvements be made to the Whanganui urban bus service:
Increased frequency on Saturday services; Provision of public holiday services that align with the Saturday timetable;
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 47
Variation to the Aramoho route to include a small residential area currently not covered (around Liverpool St/Keith St area); and Additional weekday services. Note: this is variable depending on whether the frequency is increased across the board or just on selected routes.
The total cost of implementing the above recommended changes varies depending on which of the three scenarios is chosen for additional weekday services and the cost per kilometre. Taking into account this variation and using the highest per kilometre cost, the total costs (without 51% NZTA subsidy) will be between $88,000 and $157,172. For additional detail on the costs associated with all options discussed in this report, please refer to Appendix 1 of this report.
Note: Regarding the costs discussed throughout this report, it is important to remember the following:
Costs will be subject to 51% subsidy from NZTA if confirmed in the National Land Transport Programme; The costs provided in this report are indicative and based on a per km rate only. The costs do not take into account travel times and therefore peak vehicle requirements that can add to costs. Nor has there been any consideration to timetabling, connection to other routes and providing a cohesive, connected network. Each option has been considered in isolation; and Competition (or lack of) at tender time will have an impact on the final price.
Prior to a determination of the final suite of improvements, costs will be refined to ensure other potential costs such as additional buses are included. Timetabling changes will be identified as well as ensuring good connections between routes.
Recommended changes
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current price plus Low cost Current contract cost OPTIONS 15% $2.50 / km $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Weekend Services Additional Saturday services as per existing urban route (each route 9,178 $ 22,945 $ 24,046 $ 27,718 would have six Saturday services) Public Holiday services Public holiday services on all urban routes (6 services based on 2,971 $ 7,428 $ 7,784 $ 8,972 current Saturday timetable, incl.
combined Saturday service for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns Hill) Weekday Services: Note only one of the 3 following scenarios will be chosen Scenario 1: Extra 2 x weekday services per 34,300 $ 85,750 $ 89,866 $ 103,586 existing urban route Scenario 2: Extra 1 x weekday service as per 17,150 $ 42,875 $ 44,933 $ 51,793 the existing urban route Scenario 3: Extra 1 x weekday service on 3,675 $9,187 $9,628 $11,098 Springvale only Total: Total: Total: Scenario 3: Extra 2 x $60,562 $63,469 $73,159 weekday services on 20,550 $51,375 $ 53,841 $ 62,061 Castlecliff and Aramoho routes only New/Varied Services Aramoho route variation as per Tranzit/customer - $ - $ - $ - suggestion (cost neutral)
10. Where To From Here?
The findings from this report will be considered by the Advisory Group and refined following feedback. The intention is for the Advisory Group to determine a preferred set of options to put forward to the Horizons Public Transport Committee to identify and confirm any changes to the Whanganui urban bus service. Following the Committee’s decision, changes will be incorporated into the National Land Transport Programme and Horizons’ Long Term Plan. Timetables will also be revised (if changes are made to the service) and the tender documents prepared.
Also requiring consideration is timing of the retender process. At this stage, retendering will need to commence in February 2018 in order to be completed in time for the expiry of the current contract in December 2018. However, another factor to consider is the development of NZTA’s 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which is due to be adopted in June/July 2018 and Horizons’ Long Term Plan (LTP). Ideally it would be better if funding for improvements has been confirmed in the NLTP and LTP prior to going out to tender to minimise the risk of having to change the improvements halfway through the tender process. This would require the current contract to be extended by approximately six to nine months to account for the later tender commencement of August 2018. An indicative timeline has been included for each option below.
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 49
Timeline A: Current contract expiry Timeline B: Extend contract
February 2018: PTC determines February 2017: PTC determines changes/improvements to service changes/improvements to service
November 2017–February 2018: Tender documents prepared November 2017–February 2018: Changes included in NLTP and LTP Contract extension secured February - November 2018: Re- tendering and procurement
February–June 2018: June– December 2018: Promotion of Tender documents prepared changes RLTP adopted (April)
December 2018: New contract commences June/July 2018: LTP adopted (30 June) NLTP adopted (July)
August 2018–May 2019: Retendering (commences Aug18) Contract awarded (Oct/Nov 18) Promotions
August 2019: New contract commences (note: 9 month lead in time required from time contract is awarded).
Appendix 1: Estimated costs associated with all potential options for changes to service / routes
Additional ADDITIONAL Estimated Cost Annual Km Current price plus Current contract cost OPTIONS Low cost $2.50 / km 15% $2.62 / km $3.02 / km Weekend Services Additional Saturday services as per existing urban route (each route 9,178 $ 22,945 $ 24,046 $ 27,718 would have six Saturday services) Replacing current combined Saturday service with separate 5,273 $ 13,182 $ 13,815 $ 15,924 Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns services Sunday services x 2 (based on current Saturday timetable with 6,438 $ 16,095 $ 16,867 $ 19,442 combined Saturday service for Springvale/St Johns Hill) Sunday services x 2 (based on split Aramoho 7,134 $ 17,835 $ 18,691 $ 21,544 and Springvale/St Johns Hill services) Public Holiday Services Public holiday services on all urban routes 1,559 $ 3,898 $ 4,085 $ 4,709 (based on current Saturday timetable) Public holiday services on all urban routes (six services based on current Saturday 2,971 $ 7,428 $ 7,784 $ 8,972 timetable, incl. combined Saturday service for Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns Hill) Public holidays services on all urban route (based on new Saturday timetable with six 3,293 $ 8,232 $ 8,627 $ 9,944 services and separate Aramoho and Springvale/St Johns Hill)
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 51
Weekday Services Scenario 1: Extra 2 x weekday services per 34,300 $ 85,750 $ 89,866 $ 103,586 existing urban route Scenario 2: Extra 1 x weekday service as per 17,150 $ 42,875 $ 44,933 $ 51,793 the existing urban route Scenario 3: Extra 1 x weekday service on 3,675 $9,187 $9,628 $11,098 Springvale only Total: Total: Total: Scenario 3: Extra 2 x $60,562 $63,469 $73,159 weekday services on 20,550 $51,375 $ 53,841 $ 62,061 Castlecliff and Aramoho routes only Extra 4 x weekday services on Springvale 14,700 $ 36,750 $ 38,514 $ 44,394 only New/Varied Services New Bastia Hill/Durie Hill route (Mon-Sat, 9,540 $ 23,850 $ 24,995 $ 28,811 includes public holidays) New Castlecliff/Gonville loops (Mon-Sat, includes 97,720 $ 244,300 $ 256,026 $ 295,114 public holidays) New Hospital/Aramoho loop (Mon-Sat, includes 23,290 $ 58,225 $ 61,020 $ 70,336 public holidays)
New Putiki school route 2,300 $ 5,750 $ 6,026 $ 6,946 Aramoho route variation as per Tranzit/customer - $ - $ - $ - suggestion (cost neutral)
Appendix 2: Maps of current urban routes
Map 1: Urban routes
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 53
Map 2: Rutherford Junior High
Map 3: Whanganui High School – City College
Whanganui Urban Bus Service Review – Post-consultation and Options Report September 2017 55
Map 4: Whanganui Girls College