Programme Business Case Report - getwellymoving.co.nz€¦ · processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council,

P r o g r a m m e B u s i n e s s C a s e R e p o r t

DRAFT Released 21 June 2019

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019

This report and supporting LGWM technical documents are being released in draft on Friday 21st June 2019 for the purposes of public information and to inform LGWM partner decision making processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council, and Greater Wellington City Council, nor has funding approval for any further stages been given. The contents of this draft report may change and do not necessarily represent the final position of LGWM or its partner organisations.

Copyright information

This publication is copyright © NZ Transport Agency on behalf of the LGWM partners. Material in it may be reproduced for personal or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this publication and Let’s Get Wellington Moving as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to:

Manager, Information NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141

The permission to reproduce material in this publication does not extend to any material for which the copyright is identified as being held by a third party. Authorisation to reproduce material belonging to a third party must be obtained from the copyright holder(s) concerned.

Disclaimer

The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council have endeavoured to ensure material in this document is technically accurate and reflects legal requirements. However, the document does not override governing legislation. The NZ Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and Wellington City Council do not accept liability for any consequences arising from the use of this document. If the user of this document is unsure whether the material is correct, they should refer directly to the relevant legislation and contact the NZ Transport Agency.

More information

NZ Transport Agency Published June 2019

If you have further queries, call our contact centre on 0800 699 000 or write to us:

NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141

This document is available from the NZ Transport Agency on request.

Content


Foreword .................................................................................................................................................. i

Recommended Programme of Investment .......................................................................................... ii

Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................................... iv

Programme Outcomes & Next Steps .................................................................................................. iv

Part A – The Strategic Case...................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Background and Programme History....................................................................................... 2

1.3. Programme Partners ............................................................................................................... 4

1.4. LGWM Governance and Management .................................................................................... 4

1.5. Programme Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 5

2. Programme Context ......................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Geographic Context ................................................................................................................. 7

2.2. Land Use and Urban Form ....................................................................................................... 7

2.3. Growth Projections.................................................................................................................. 7

2.4. Current Transport System Design ............................................................................................ 8

2.5. Role of the Transport System ................................................................................................ 12

2.6. Current Transport System Pressures ..................................................................................... 12

2.7. National Strategic Context..................................................................................................... 15

2.8. Regional Strategic Context .................................................................................................... 15

2.9. Local Strategic Context .......................................................................................................... 16

3. Strategic Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 18

3.1. Investment Logic ................................................................................................................... 18

3.2. Transport System Causes ...................................................................................................... 19

3.3. Transport System Effects ....................................................................................................... 22

3.4. Transport System Consequences .......................................................................................... 22

3.5. Transport System Opportunities ........................................................................................... 23

4. Programme Objectives ................................................................................................................... 26

4.1. Urban Design and Transport Principles ................................................................................. 26

4.2. LGWM Investment Objectives ............................................................................................... 28

Part B – Developing the Programme ..................................................................................................... 29

Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 29

Part B1 – Strategic Response ................................................................................................................. 31

5. Potential Interventions................................................................................................................... 31

5.1. Intervention Development and Assessment ......................................................................... 31

Content


6. Test Scenarios ................................................................................................................................ 32

6.1. Test Scenario Development (2016) ....................................................................................... 32

6.2. Test Scenario Assessment ..................................................................................................... 35

6.3. Test Scenarios Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 36

6.4. Community and Stakeholder Workshops (early 2017) .......................................................... 37

7. Developing the Strategic Response ................................................................................................ 38

8. Scenarios for Engagement ............................................................................................................. 40

8.1. Engagement Scenarios Development .................................................................................... 40

8.2. Engagement Scenarios Assessment ...................................................................................... 41

8.3. Engagement Feedback .......................................................................................................... 44

8.4. LGWM Response to Engagement Scenarios Feedback .......................................................... 44

9. SMART Objective Development ..................................................................................................... 46

Part B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements ........................................................................................... 47

10. Programme Development Analysis ............................................................................................ 47

10.1. LGWM as an enabler for urban development ....................................................................... 47

10.2. Pricing .................................................................................................................................... 48

10.3. Alternative Futures and Technology ...................................................................................... 49

10.4. Mass Transit .......................................................................................................................... 51

10.5. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro .............................................................................. 53

10.6. Basin Reserve Area ................................................................................................................ 55

11. Further Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 58

11.1. State Highway 1 Corridor ...................................................................................................... 58

11.2. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro .............................................................................. 58

11.3. State Highway 1 corridor through Mt Victoria ...................................................................... 58

Part B3 – Programme Development ...................................................................................................... 59

12. Longlist Programme Options ...................................................................................................... 59

12.1. Longlist Programme Development ........................................................................................ 59

12.2. Longlist Programme Options ................................................................................................. 61

12.3. Longlist Programme Assessment ........................................................................................... 61

13. Shortlist Programme Options ..................................................................................................... 63

13.1. Shortlist Programme Development and Options................................................................... 63

13.2. Shortlist Programme Assessment .......................................................................................... 66

14. Recommended Programme ....................................................................................................... 67

14.1. Recommended Programme Development ............................................................................ 67

14.2. Recommended Programme of Investment Summary ........................................................... 68

14.3. Recommended Programme Detail ........................................................................................ 69

14.4. Whole of Network Solution ................................................................................................... 81

Content


14.5. Recommended Programme of Investment Sequencing ........................................................ 82

14.6. Recommended Programme Assessment ............................................................................... 86

14.7. Programme Risks and Uncertainties ...................................................................................... 95

Part C – Preferred Way Forward ........................................................................................................... 97

15. Affordability Contraints .............................................................................................................. 97

16. Indicative Package ...................................................................................................................... 98

16.1. Funding and Financing the Indicative Package .................................................................... 100

16.2. Assessment of the Indicative Package ................................................................................. 100

16.3. Whole of System Solution ................................................................................................... 103

16.4. Sequencing, Interdependencies and Trigger Points ............................................................ 103

17. Management Case .................................................................................................................... 105

17.1. Delivery Model .................................................................................................................... 105

17.2. Next Steps for Delivery ........................................................................................................ 105

17.3. Programme Monitoring and Reviews .................................................................................. 107

17.4. Programme Funding ............................................................................................................ 109

17.5. Risks and Uncertainties ....................................................................................................... 109

18. Commercial Case ...................................................................................................................... 111

APPENDIX A – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

APPENDIX B – INVESTMENT LOGIC MAP

APPENDIX C – INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE KPIS AND RPI ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX D – NOTE 1: INTERVENTION LONGLIST SCREEN

APPENDIX E – NOTE 2: SCENARIO LONGLIST DEVELOPMENT

APPENDIX F – LONGLIST SCENARIOS MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS REPORT

APPENDIX G – ENGAGEMENT SCENARIOS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX H – LONGLIST PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP NOTES

APPENDIX I – SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS WORKSHOP NOTES

APPENDIX J – COST REPORT

APPENDIX K – ECONOMICS REPORT

APPENDIX L – INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX M – MONITORING PLAN

APPENDIX N – TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

Foreword

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 i

FOREWORD Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and

the NZ Transport Agency have worked together to deliver a

transformational city-shaping programme for Wellington that

supports the community’s aspirations for how Wellington City will

look, feel and function. It does this by providing a holistic transport

system that enables and supports future growth and builds upon

Wellington’s unique character as one of the world’s great cities.

The resultant Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI),

outlined in this Programme Business Case, aims to improve the

way people get around, while enhancing liveability and access,

reducing reliance on private vehicles, and improving safety and

resilience.

The focus of the RPI is on the area from Ngauranga Gorge to the

airport, including the Wellington Urban Motorway and

connections to the central city, hospital, and the eastern and

southern suburbs. This focus area should be seen in the context of

the wider Wellington regional transport system, as many of the

journeys in the central city start and finish outside the focus area.

The RPI and this associated Programme Business Case has been developed with a strong focus on people and

the desire to enable an improved quality of life. As such, significant public and stakeholder engagement was

undertaken to inform the place-making approach, which has been used to integrate the transport outcomes

with the land use and urban development outcomes of the RPI. In doing so, the RPI can act as a catalyst for

quality and sustainable urban renewal and growth.

While recognised as one of the world’s most liveable cities, Wellington’s transport system is starting to

constrain the city and region’s liveability, economic growth and productivity. The Programme Business Case

clearly outlines how we started with the kind of city and region our community wants and defined a transport

system and associated investment needed to enable that:

Foreword

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 ii

Artist’s impression: Lambton Quay

The overall strategic approach used to establish the RPI and respond to the investment and programme

objectives were as follows:

STRATEGIC APPROACH

Make the most of what we have

Optimise the transport system and make it safer

Encourage people to walk, cycle, and use public transport more, and use cars less

Deliver a step change in public transport

Substantially improve public transport capacity, quality and performance

Encourage urban intensification near public transport

Improve journeys to, from and in the central city

Prioritise people walking, cycling, and using public transport on key corridors

Improve accessibility and amenity of places and streets

Ensure goods and services journeys are reliable

Improve journeys through and around the central city

Reduce conflicts between different transport users and traffic flows

Increase the resilience and reliability of our transport corridors, especially to the hospital, port, and airport

Recommended Programme of Investment

The Recommended Programme of Investment establishes the proposed long-term vision and aspiration for

Wellington’s transport system and urban transformation. While aspirational, this Programme Business Case

confirms the benefits envisaged based on the level of analysis appropriate to this stage of the process. It

recognises that the investment required is significant and that further investigation into the funding and

financing strategy is required. Importantly the RPI is a series of integrated interventions and investments that

create a whole system transformation. As such, caution needs to be applied if certain elements are considered

in isolation i.e. the RPI is a kit of parts not a shopping list.

The transformational, multifaceted RPI achieves the following:

High-quality walking and cycling so our streets are safer and better places for people:

Safer speeds in and around the city Walking improvements though the

central city including: o Footpath widening o Improved crossing facilities and

reduced waiting times o Better shelters, signage, lighting

New dedicated walking access through Mt Victoria

Public space improvements, for example, Dixon, Mercer, through Te Aro, Basin Reserve

A network of connected cycleways through the central city New dedicated cycleways connecting through Mt Victoria, along Adelaide Rd, and Vivian St New pedestrian crossings, including Cobham Drive

tist’s impression: Lambton Quay

Foreword

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 iii

Artist’s impression: Taranaki Street

Artist’s impression: Basin Reserve Northern Entrance

Artist’s impression: Corner of Willis & Mercer Streets

Better public transport with high-capacity mass transit so people have more travel choices, and buses and trains are more reliable and attractive:

High-capacity mass transit from the railway station to the airport via a new waterfront spine, Taranaki Street, the hospital, Newtown, Kilbirnie, and Miramar

Bus priority improvements: o Golden Mile spine, with possible

general traffic removal on Willis and parts of Lambton and Courtenay

o Core routes into the city such as Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road High quality, high frequency buses Increased rail network capacity (Implemented outside of LGWM) Integrated ticketing (Implemented outside of LGWM)

Urban development land use changes integrated with transport so people have better travel options where they live and work:

Inform district plan changes Other tools to increase housing Building where the market can’t deliver Capturing increases in land value to

support infrastructure investment

Smarter transport network with road pricing so people and goods make better use of our transport system without more cars:

Smarter pricing (e.g. parking/cordon charges)

Mobility as a Service for Wellington Network optimisation, safety and

operations improvements Enhanced Travel Demand Management (TDM) Integrated network operating system Align parking policy and management with the programme

Multimodal State Highway improvements to relocate cars out of the central city and enable better public transport, walking and cycling, and so people can get to key destinations, such as the hospital and airport, more reliably:

Basin Reserve improvements Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel and widening

Ruahine St/Wellington Rd Reconfiguring SH1 into a tunnel under a

new city park in Te Aro Extra Terrace Tunnel SH1 Southbound widening between

Ngauranga and Aotea Quay

Foreword

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 iv

Cost Estimates

A rough order of costs has been developed for the elements of the RPI as shown in the table below. These

estimates should be considered indicative based on 2018 uninflated figures and are inclusive of management

costs, construction costs and professional fees. Contingency has been qualitatively assessed and applied to the

base estimates. Funding risk has not been applied at this stage.

Recommended Programme of Investment Cost Assessment

RPI ELEMENT ESTIMATED COST $M

(2018 UNINFLATED)

Walkable City 70*

Connected Cycleways 30

Public Transport to the north and to/through the city ** 300

Mass Transit – City to Newtown*** 990

Mass Transit – Newtown to Airport*** 450

Smarter Transport Network 30

Smarter Pricing 30

Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel – Duplicate Ruahine St. / Wellington Rd. 480

Basin Reserve Improvements 130

Extra Terrace Tunnel and 4th lane Southbound 400

Te Aro Tunnel and Park 1,100

TOTAL 4,010

* Cost reflects an allocation to undertake early improvements and commence an ongoing programme of larger scale public space improvements ** Excludes rail improvements (funded currently outside of LGWM) *** Cost estimates based on a Light Rail Transit style for Mass Transit

Programme Outcomes & Next Steps

The RPI assessment confirms that it will deliver strongly against the investment objectives. In particular, the

RPI will enable and support future growth by enhancing Wellington’s liveability and transport accessibility,

safety and adaptability.

The economic assessment in this business case quantifies several billion dollars of benefit in realising these

outcomes, but at a correspondingly high cost. The latter presents a challenge to LGWM partners, and

therefore an Indicative Package has been identified by the government as a more affordable way forward that

performs well against the investment objectives.

This Programme Business Case therefore recommends proceeding with detailed investigation of the Indicative

Package and the RPI to ensure LGWM delivers and realises the identified outcomes and vision.

PART A – The Strategic Case

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Business Case – Draft Released 21 June 2019 1

PART A – THE STRATEGIC CASE

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose

Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) is an alliance between Wellington City Council (WCC), Greater

Wellington Regional Council (GWRC), and the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency).

LGWM seeks to deliver an integrated transport system that supports the community’s aspirations for

how Wellington City will look, feel and function.

Figure 1 LGWM regional and national location (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)

This Programme Business Case summarises LGWM’s integrated transport planning process between

2015 and 2018. The purpose of the programme business case is to enable decisions on the best way

forward for investing in the central Wellington transport system over the long term. Supporting

documents containing more details about the development of the programme are published on the

LGWM website.

In developing this Programme Business Case, LGWM has followed the Transport Agency’s business

case guidelines. LGWM has had a strong focus on public and stakeholder engagement, and the need

for close integration with land use planning.



1.2. Background and Programme History

The 2007 Ngauranga to Airport Strategic Study identified the following emerging issues facing the

Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor (see map of the corridor at Figure 2):

Increasing travel demand as a result of increasing population and predicted increases in vehicle usage

in the Wellington Region, in particular with respect to the Wellington CBD and associated major

regional facilities (such as the airport and port), will put pressure on the existing transport network and

services, parts of which are already at, or very close to capacity at peak times.

The key ‘high-level’ challenges identified in the 2007 study were:

Accommodating an overall increase in transport demand

Accommodating an increasing number of commuter trips to the CBD

Increasing the level of ‘penetration’ of passenger transport into the CBD to

facilitate/encourage a change in transport mode choices

Providing relief to existing (and future) ‘choke points’

Accommodating an increasing number of trips to/from the port and airport as passenger and

freight movements increase

Enhanced opportunities to cater for active modes of transport such as walking and cycling

The need to integrate urban form considerations into transport planning.

The 2008 Ngauranga to Wellington Airport Corridor Plan was developed to respond to these issues. It

defined a number of packages for improvements to the transport network within the corridor.

A key element of the plan was design and construction of major highway improvements at the Basin

Reserve to improve passenger transport, walking and cycling by separating north-south flows from

east-west traffic. The Transport Agency developed a Basin Bridge proposal to deliver this element of

the plan but, when this was considered by a Board of Inquiry in July 2014, resource consent was

declined. In August 2015 the High Court issued a ruling dismissing the Transport Agency’s appeal of

the Board of Inquiry decision.

Following the Basin Bridge decision, a partnership (LGWM) was established between WCC, GWRC and

the Transport Agency to develop an integrated and multi-modal improvement programme for the

whole Ngauranga to Airport corridor, to respond to Wellington’s long-term transport needs. This

Programme Business Case summarises the business case for investing in the improvement

programme LGWM has developed.



Figure 2 LGWM Ngauranga to Airport corridor map (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)



1.3. Programme Partners

This programme development project has been undertaken collaboratively by the partners, WCC,

GWRC, and the Transport Agency as outlined in Table 1 and described in more detail in the following

subchapters.

Table 1 Let’s Get Wellington Moving Programme Partners

1.3.1. Wellington City Council WCC is the local authority responsible for Wellington City. The geographic scope of LGWM is within

the Wellington City territorial boundary. As a territorial local authority, Wellington City Council is

responsible for planning land use, managing urban growth, and the provision and operation of the

walking network, cycling network, and local road network within Wellington City.

1.3.2. Greater Wellington Regional Council GWRC is the organisation primarily responsible for overall regional transport planning and civil

emergency management. GWRC is also responsible for managing public transport services across the

Wellington region, including arranging funding and contracts for service delivery.

1.3.3. New Zealand Transport Agency The Transport Agency is the crown entity responsible for planning and investing in the land transport

system. It also manages the State Highway network and provides access to, and use of, the land

transport system (for example, through licensing drivers and vehicles, and collecting road user

charges).

1.4. LGWM Governance and Management

LGWM has been established as a partnership with governance arrangements as set out in Table 2.

The programme team has been led by an independent programme director (Barry Mein) and the

team members drawn from the member organisations. The programme team has commissioned

technical support work undertaken by a range of consultants.

PARTNERS KNOWLEDGE AREAS / RESPONSIBILITIES

Wellington City Council (WCC) Planning land use and managing urban growth

Provision and operation of walking network, cycling network, and

local road network

Greater Wellington Regional Council

(GWRC)

Strategic transport planning for the region

Provision of public transport services (buses and passenger rail)

Civil defence emergency management

New Zealand Transport Agency

(the Transport Agency)

Investor in land transport system through allocating the National

Land Transport Fund

Provision and operation of the State Highway network

Regulator of access to and use of the land transport system



Table 2 LGWM Governance (as at November 2018)

1.5. Programme Stakeholders

LGWM has met and interacted with representatives at stakeholder briefings, workshops, and one-on-

one meetings of the organisations set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3 LGWM Stakeholder Groups

GOVERNANCE GROUP (STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING AND OVERSIGHT)

Raewyn Bleakley (NZ Transport Agency) Mayor Wayne Guppy (UHCC)

Councillor Chris Calvi-Freeman (WCC) Councillor Chris Laidlaw (GWRC)

Councillor Barbara Donaldson (GWRC) Mayor Justin Lester (WCC)

Fergus Gammie (NZ Transport Agency)

ALLIANCE BOARD (SUPERVISE THE DEVELOPMENT OF LGWM PROGRAMME)

Pete Clark (NZ Transport Agency) Kevin Lavery (WCC)

Greg Campbell (GWRC)

PROGRAMME DIRECTOR

Barry Mein (Independent)

Stakeholder Group

Description Stakeholder Group

Description

Automobile Association (Wellington District Council)

Membership organisation representing people with motoring interests in the Wellington Region

NZ Police National police force response for enforcing criminal law, enhancing public safety, and keeping the peace

Architectural Centre Independent, voluntary organisation of architects, artists, designers and others

OraTaiao Association of health professionals concerned about climate change

Centreport Intermodal freight hub, linking road, rail, domestic and international shipping services

Our CBD Group of Wellington retail and hospitality stakeholders with an interest in the city CBD

Chorus Telecommunications infrastructure company

Porirua Chamber of Commerce

Community of business people in Porirua

Congestion Free Wellington

Coalition of many groups aiming to promote a more liveable Wellington city, responsive to climate change, by reducing reliance on the private car

PowerCo Owner and operator of Wellington's gas distribution network

Cycle Aware Wellington Cycling advocacy group that aims to get more people on bikes, more often, in Wellington

Retail NZ Retail trading associating representing over 65% of NZ's retail turnover

Cycle Action Network National voice for people on bicycles in NZ

Road Transport Forum

National association representing the commercial road freight industry

East by West Ferries Wellington's harbour ferry service running up to 16 return harbour crossings daily

Save the Basin A group advocating against building a flyover at the Basin Reserve and for better region-wide transport solutions



STAKEHOLDER

GROUP DESCRIPTION

STAKEHOLDER

GROUP DESCRIPTION

Fair Intelligent Transport

Group of professionals advocating for all-electric light rail in Wellington

Taxi Federation National body for taxi companies

First Retail Group Retail consultants, planners, and strategists

TramsAction Group advocating for the introduction of tram-train in Wellington to extend the current rail system

Generation Zero Youth-led environmental advocacy organisation that focuses on climate change

Vodafone Telecommunications company

Hack Miramar Group of Miramar residents that organises technology events

WCC Accessibility Advisory Group

Advisory committee providing the Council with feedback and advice from the view of people living with impairment

Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce

Society of business people based in the Hutt Valley

WCC Environmental Reference Group

Forum for advice to Council during the developmental stages of urban design and transport projects

Inner City Association Group of residents, organisations, and property owners in Wellington's inner city

WCC Youth Council Advisory committee to the Council on issues that affect the city's youth

Kapiti Coast Chamber of Commerce

Collective voice for business in Kapiti Wellington Chamber of Commerce

Group encouraging regional development and representing the region's businesses

KiwiRail State-owned enterprise responsible for NZ's rail network and the Interislander ferries

Wellington Cable Car The operator of Wellington's cable cars

Heavy Haulage Association

National trade association for companies that transport overweight or overdimension loads

Wellington Civic Trust

Organisation working to help make Wellington the best of all possible places to live and work

Living Streets Aotearoa (Wellington)

Organisation for people on foot, promoting walking-friendly communities

Wellington Combined Taxis

Provider of Wellington taxi services

Light Rail Transit Association (NZ)

An international association concerned with better public transport through light rail and other systems

Wellington Electricity

Distributor of electricity to about 166,000 homes and business in the Wellington region

Mana Coach Services Provider of urban and chartered passenger transport

Wellington Free Ambulance

Provider of free paramedic care to the people of Greater Wellington and the Wairarapa

Motor Trade Association

National industry organisation representing over 4000 automotive businesses around NZ

Wellington Property Council

Collective voice for the commercial property industry in Wellington

Mt Cook Mobilised Community group advocating for residents of Mt Cook

Wellington Regional Hospital (CCDHB)

Wellington's regional hospital in Newtown

Mt Victoria Residents Association

Community group advocating for Mt Victoria residents

Wellington Tenths Trust

Ahu Whenua Trust administering Maori reserve lands in urban Wellington, Kaitoke and Upper Hutt

Mt Victoria Historical Society

Community group advocating for the protection and preservation of natural and built heritage in Mt Victoria

Wellington Water Manager of drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater services in the Wellington region

Ngāti Toa Rangātira Mana whenua and Kaitiaki of the Wellington region along with other iwi

Wellington International Airport Limited

Owner and operator of Wellington's international airport in Rongotai

NZ Bus Provider of urban passenger transport services in Wellington

WREDA Regional economic development agency for the lower North Island

NZ Couriers Nationwide courier service

PART A – Programme Context


2. PROGRAMME CONTEXT 2.1. Geographic Context

The scope of LGWM is to identify improvements to the transport system and associated urban

development opportunities in the focus area shown in Figure 2 (Section 0). This focus area should be

seen in the context of the wider Wellington regional transport system, as many of the journeys in the

central city start and finish outside the focus area.

Wellington’s transport system enables movement of people, goods and services. It is multi-modal in

nature, encompassing walking, cycling, public transport (buses, taxis, trains, ferries, cable cars, ride-

sharing), rail freight, and motor vehicles. The transport system also includes other elements such as

network management, information services, and parking provision.

2.2. Land Use and Urban Form

Land use, urban form and the economy are the primary drivers of demand for transport services in

the Greater Wellington region as a whole and in the central city area in particular.

In recent decades, major cities – such as Auckland, Sydney and Melbourne – have dominated

economic and population growth in Australasia, attracting ever greater shares of skills, business and

investment. Smaller cities have had to find ways to stand out and position themselves. What a city can

offer, in terms of quality of life and quality of jobs, is driving the decisions of mobile, skilled

populations about where they want to live.

Wellington has a world-class quality of life, a physical environment of outstanding beauty, a highly

skilled population, high incomes, healthy communities, and a reputation for creativity and quality

events. This is reflected in its reputation as a liveable city1. However, there is a need for Wellington to

constantly improve itself to continue competing internationally. To do this, the Wellington of the

future will need to be:

A resilient city and region capable of supporting intensified land uses

A growing and dynamic Wellington with world-class, inclusive place-making

Well-designed walkable neighbourhoods connected by a smart transport system

An attractive and compact city that’s more sustainable, accessible and safe

A city which attracts high value jobs and opportunities.

The right transport decisions and investments are fundamental to supporting this future vision for

Wellington. This will benefit the central city, the Wellington region, and the nation.

2.3. Growth Projections

The population of the Wellington Region currently stands at around 510,000 people. Under medium

projections the population is forecast to grow by 15% over the next 30 years, equating to 75,000

extra residents.

The distribution of this growth is estimated to be as follows:

30% will be focused around Wellington’s central city and inner suburbs

20% will occur in Wellington City’s northern suburbs 1 2018 Deutsche Bank named Wellington City as the most liveable city out of 50 global cities



13% will occur in other areas of Wellington City

The remainder (37%) will be around urban centres outside Wellington City, relatively evenly

split across the Kapiti Coast, Porirua, Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt, with a lesser proportion in

the Wairarapa.

Over 40% of the current 235,000 jobs in the Wellington region are located in the central city. The high

concentration of employment in the central city attracts commuters from the wider Wellington

region. The employment projections show regional employment growing by between 15% and 20%

over the next 30 years. The employment projections suggest that between 55% and 60% of future

growth in employment is likely to be focused in the central city, potentially increasing the number of

jobs there from the current 99,000 to between 114,000 and 131,000 over the next 30 years.

2.4. Current Transport System Design

2.4.1. Transport Corridors from the North North of the central city, State Highway 1 and Hutt Road run parallel to the main rail lines (the North

Island Main Trunk, the Johnsonville Line, and the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa Lines), with the primary

bus routes running along Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay.

Figure 3 Transport corridors to the north of Wellington Central City (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)



2.4.2. Access to the Central City from the North

Public Transport Access The railway lines terminate at the Wellington Railway Station, located at the northern end of the CBD.

There are rail sidings to the north of the station and there is access for rail freight to CentrePort from

Waterloo Quay at-grade.

Rail passengers arriving at Wellington station, wishing to proceed southwards through the CBD, must

do so on foot, by bike, or by bus using the waterfront route (Waterloo and Customhouse Quays), or

along Featherston Street, Victoria Street, Willis Street, Lambton Quay and the Terrace.

Figure 4 Public Transport on the ‘Golden Mile’ within the central city (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)

Most of the suburban bus services from the north and west run along Lambton Quay and Willis Street

(the Golden Mile shown in Figure 4), providing a convenient connection through the heart of the city.

The Cable Car terminal is also located on Lambton Quay. Taxi services operate from taxi ranks

throughout the central city.



Motor Vehicle Access Motor vehicles from the north enter the central city (or traverse it) by travelling along three routes –

State Highway 1, Hutt Road/Thorndon Quay and the Aotea Quay/Waterfront route. Road access to

CentrePort and the Cook Strait ferry terminals is from Aotea Quay.

State Highway 1 is a motorway until it enters the Terrace Tunnel, after which it traverses the local city

street network and connects to Mt Victoria Tunnel via a one-way system through Te Aro, comprising:

Vivian Street/Kent Terrace to Basin Reserve eastbound

Basin Reserve via the Arras Tunnel and along Karo Drive westbound

Figure 5 General traffic routes within the central city (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)

While State Highway 1 provides a through route for vehicles passing through the central city and

towards the airport and hospital, the Vivian Street/Karo Drive one-way system also acts as a

distributor for the majority of vehicles (70%-75%) that use State Highway 1 to access the central city

or southern and eastern suburbs. Local routes that connect this part of State Highway 1 to the CBD

include Willis Street, Victoria Street, Taranaki Street, and the Cambridge/Kent Terraces. The principal

connections to the western suburbs are via Bowen/Glenmore Street, Salamanca Road and Aro Street.



2.4.3. Access to the Central City from the South and East The main access from the eastern suburbs and the airport is via the two-lane State Highway 1 Mt

Victoria road tunnel, Constable Street in Newtown, and the single lane Hataitai bus tunnel. Oriental

Parade and Evans Bay Parade provide an alternative waterfront route following the harbour’s edge

“Round the Bays” at the foot of Mt Victoria. This is also one of Wellington’s main cycle routes.

Figure 6 Transport corridors to the south and east of Wellington City (LINZ, NZ Transport Agency)

The main connections from the Hospital and Newtown to the CBD are along Adelaide Road/Kent and

Cambridge Terraces, Taranaki Street, Willis Street and Victoria Street. Bus services from the southern

suburbs use these routes, together with general traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. These routes

intersect at grade with State Highway 1 as they pass through Te Aro, both at the Basin Reserve and

Karo Drive/Vivian Street.

Other key transport services include harbour ferries, which connect the waterfront, Seatoun and

Eastbourne.



2.4.4. Network Operating Systems State Highway 1 is operated by the Transport Agency traffic operations centre at Johnsonville. Other

traffic signals within the city are managed from the traffic operations room at WCC. Rail services are

operated from the Wellington Railway station by Kiwirail and Transdev. Buses are managed by the

operators, generally under contract to GWRC.

2.5. Role of the Transport System

In the past, the development of tramways, passenger rail and bus services and, later, private motoring

allowed the city to develop in certain ways. This gave people the opportunity to live in suburbs away

from the central city, whilst still allowing them to access high value employment opportunities in the

CBD. However, in recent years there has been a strong trend for people to move back to living within

the central city, and this has led to more people enjoying the health benefits of walking and cycling to

work, and so avoiding the need to travel by motorised transport along increasingly congested

commuter routes.

The transport system has a key role to play in facilitating further growth in Wellington, in particular

supporting further intensification of the central city and the high quality of life it has to offer. Enabling

more people to live and move around the central city is desirable economically as it supports an

increasingly productive economy by matching innovative businesses with a highly skilled labour pool.

Good job opportunities and a high quality of life tend to attract talented people to the city.

Intensification in the central city and around public transport hubs is also desirable as it reduces the

environmental impacts of travel to and from the central city.

2.6. Current Transport System Pressures

In recent years, most of the growth in travel demand to, from and within the central city has been

accommodated by people choosing more sustainable ways to travel, by walking, cycling and using rail

and bus services. Private vehicle activity within the central city has been held in check by constrained

road corridor capacity, traffic congestion on the approaches to the central city, and the relatively high

cost of commuter car parking within the central city itself.

At peak times, parts of the central city network and routes to the central city operate at capacity for

general traffic. Buses are caught up in the traffic congestion so that service efficiency and reliability

are severely compromised. Traffic impacts negatively on amenity within the central city, and on the

safety and convenience of those moving around on foot and on bikes.

The passenger rail services are not caught up in traffic congestion because trains operate on their

own dedicated corridors. However, because the trains terminate at Wellington Station at the

northern end of the CBD, journeys to destinations further south can involve a lengthy walk or

transferring to bus services that stop frequently as they pass through the central city. This means that

car travel often provides the quickest journey through the central city to destinations to the south

and east of the CBD, despite the congestion of the road network during peak travel times.

Transport routes to access the central city and key regional destinations are limited in number and

constrained by the geography of the harbour and hills. The compact urban form resulting from this

challenging topography has helped to encourage relatively high use of public transport, walking, and

cycling as modes of travel. However, the reliance on a small number of corridors creates issues for

accessibility and resilience.



Overall, the system provides little ‘slack’ for unplanned events such as vehicle crashes, rail service

outages, and severe weather. The system is particularly vulnerable to seismic events, with several

fault lines in the area.

Figure 7 2016 and forecast 2036 Population (pink) and Employment (blue) in the Wellington Region (WCC)



Figure 8 Hazard risks to the transport system, blue and yellow areas represent evacuation zones (WCC)



2.7. National Strategic Context

LGWM has had regard to a number of national strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment.

The key national document is summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment

outlined in Appendix A.

2.7.1. Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (2018) The Government Policy Statement (GPS) 2018 sets out the Government’s priorities for the land

transport sector, including the outcomes the government expects through investment of the National

Land Transport Fund (NLTF). The GPS identifies safety and access as key priorities, supported by the

priorities of the environment and value for money.

The GPS strategic objectives are to provide a land transport system that:

Is a safe system, free of death and serious injury

Provides increased access to economic and social opportunities

Enables transport choice and access

Is resilient

Reduces greenhouse gas emissions, as well as adverse effects on the local environment and

public health

Delivers the right infrastructure and services to the right level at the best cost.

Themes have also been included in the GPS to assist understanding of how to effectively deliver on

the priorities. The themes influence how the results should be delivered to ensure the best transport

solutions for New Zealand are achieved. The themes for GPS 2018 are:

A mode-neutral approach to transport planning and investment decisions

Incorporating technology and innovation into the design and delivery of land transport

investment

Integrating land use and transport planning and delivery.

2.8. Regional Strategic Context

LGWM has had regard to a number of regional strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment.

The key regional documents are summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment

outlined in Appendix A.

2.8.1. Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) is a statutory document prepared under the Land Transport

Management Act that provides the agreed strategic direction for development of the region’s land

transport network. The 2015 Wellington RLTP identifies four key transport problem statements for

the region:

Transport inefficiencies lead to suppressed regional economic growth and productivity

Transport infrastructure deficiencies and poor user behaviour leads to a sub-optimal regional

road safety performance

Regional infrastructure that is vulnerable to disruption by unplanned events is potentially

resulting in an unacceptable cost of severance and restricted ability to recover over time

Poor delivery of transport and land use can result in a deteriorating living environment and

reduced transport choices for the region’s population.



The RLTP identifies eight strategic objectives in response to the above problems:

A high quality, reliable public transport network

A reliable and effective strategic road network

An effective network for the movement of freight

A safe system for all users of the regional transport network

An increasingly resilient transport network

A well planned, connected and integrated transport network

An attractive and safe walking and cycling network

An efficient and optimised transport system that minimises the impact on the environment.

The overall strategic approach in the RLTP recognises that the transport system has different roles

and uses at different times of the day and week, and that there are often trade-offs between

transport objectives. The goal is to have more people using public transport, walking, and cycling as

modes of travel - particularly at peak times when the transport network is in high demand. The

strategy however recognises that public transport, walking or cycling will not be feasible for every trip.

Multi-modal solutions are needed to effectively support the region’s economic growth and liveability.

2.8.2. Ngauranga to Airport Strategy The 2015 RLTP includes a Ngauranga to Airport Strategy chapter, which identifies the key problems,

benefits, and strategic responses specific to the LGWM focus area. This is under review as part of

LGWM, but currently promotes a multi-modal approach with four strategic principles:

A high quality and high frequency passenger transport ‘spine’

A reliable and accessible ‘ring’ or bypass route for vehicles

Inter-connected, safe, and convenient local street, walking, cycling and passenger transport

networks

Highly accessible and attractive ‘activity’ or shopping streets.

2.9. Local Strategic Context

LGWM has had regard to a number of local strategic documents and policies to ensure alignment. The

key local documents are summarised below, with more detailed assessment of alignment outlined in

Appendix A.

2.9.1. Wellington Urban Growth Plan: Urban Development and Transport Strategy 2014-43 Adopted in 2015, the plan is the Wellington City Council’s growth management strategy. The plan

seeks to deliver four key outcomes: a compact city, a liveable city, a city set in nature, and a resilient

city.

The plan integrates land use and transport planning, complemented by environmental and resilience

considerations. It focuses intensification in the central city and in areas with good access to public

transport and local services; this has significant impacts on transport planning through or around the

central city. Improvements to cycling, walking and public transport are integral to the strategy.

More recently, a document titled “Future City Vision: A Great Harbour City” has been developed

simultaneously with LGWM2. It explores the potential for the transport system to support Wellington

2 The document is independent advice commissioned by WCC to inform growth planning; it is not a formally

adopted document.



City’s future vision and urban development goal. The document highlights the role of LGWM as a

catalyst for urban renewal and growth, enhancing the capital city as a place to live, work and invest.

The city plans to accommodate its population and economic growth through a mix of intensification in

existing urban areas, which have good transport links, infrastructure and community facilities, and

limited urban expansion into greenfield areas.

The main projected growth areas identified in the 2015 Wellington Urban Growth Plan are:

The central city: around 20,000 more residents are expected to be accommodated in Te Aro,

Wellington Central, Pipitea and Thorndon by 2043

The Adelaide Road corridor, Newtown and the sub-regional centres (Johnsonville and

Kilbirnie): over 11,000 more people are expected to accommodate in these areas by 2043

New urban areas north of the city: over 11,000 new residents are expected in Lincolnshire

Farm, Woodridge, Churton Park and Stebbings Valley by 2043 (part of northern suburbs).

The forecasts reflect the significant potential for accommodating additional growth within the central

city and surrounding areas. This would reduce the need for people to travel longer distances for work

and leisure purposes, and make for a more compact, vibrant and environmentally responsible city.

2.9.2. Towards 2040: Smart Capital Adopted in 2011, Towards 2040 aims to “position Wellington as an internationally competitive city

with a strong and diverse economy, a high quality of life and healthy communities.” The vision has

four goals: People-centred city, Connected city, Eco-city, Dynamic central city.

The document envisages that “Wellington's people-centred city will be healthy, vibrant, affordable

and resilient, with a strong sense of identity and 'place'. This will be expressed through urban form,

openness and accessibility for its current and future populations.” The Dynamic central city goal

imagines that the central city will be a vibrant and creative place offering the lifestyle, entertainment

and amenities of a much bigger city, and that the central city will continue to drive the regional

economy.

2.9.3. Central City Framework The Central City Framework was adopted in 2011 and is a supporting document to Towards 2040. The

Framework contains a series of projects related to street structure, landscape and built form, which

seeks to influence the future shape of the central city.

2.9.4. Wellington City District Plan – Central Area The central area chapter of the District Plan (last amended October 2013) describes the desired

future for the central city. The District Plan sets a vision for a vibrant, prosperous, liveable city with a

Central Area comprising a commercial core with a mix of related activities. The plan’s central area

provisions are based on a list of principles that will guide future development.

PART A – Strategic Assessment


3. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 3.1. Investment Logic

An investment logic map was originally developed by LGWM in August 2016. The investment logic

map was subsequently reviewed in December 2017 to reflect insights and public engagement carried

out in October and November 2017. This updated investment logic is shown in Appendix B.

Further work carried out in late 2017 and in 2018 analysed the problem definition in the headings of

causes, effects and consequences as summarised in Table 4.

Table 4 LGWM Case for Change: problems and opportunities

The following sections present a brief overview of the causes, effects and consequences associated

with the problems and opportunities identified by LGWM, with supporting evidence. A

comprehensive evidence base is available in the ‘Case for Change’ and ‘Data Report’ documents.

3 Subsequent to the problems being finalised as part of the LGWM Progress Report, LGWM has an increased

focus on urban development and land use that is not fully captured within the problem causes and effects as presented.

PROBLEMS - CAUSES3 PROBLEMS - EFFECTS

Growing demand for travel to, from, through and

within the central city

Transport modes competing for limited space on

constrained corridors

Cross-directional movements creating conflicts

between movements and modes

Poor and declining levels of service

Increasing congestion and unreliable journey times

Vulnerability to disruption from unplanned events

Safety issues especially for active modes

PROBLEMS - CONSEQUENCES OPPORTUNITIES

Reduced amenity (e.g. noise, pollution, and

severance) for people living, visiting and working in

the central city

Lack of transport system capacity, particularly on rail

and bus services, constraining Wellington’s growth

Slower and less predictable travel time for journeys

to, from, within and through the central city

Increase in disrupted journeys for people and freight

and slower recovery

Deaths and serious injuries, especially for

pedestrians and cyclists

Enhance travel choice for access to, from, within

and through the central city

Make city streets more attractive and safer places

to be

Shape urban growth and activate urban

regeneration

Support increased productivity

Improve community health and wellbeing

Support enhanced environmental outcomes



3.2. Transport System Causes

Wellington’s transport system is coming under pressure from economic growth, population growth

and changing land use patterns as shown in Figure 11. Intensification of both residential and

commercial land use in the central city, and an increase in the number of visitors, is leading to a

growth in short journeys and demand for a safe and convenient central city street network with a

high level of amenity. The growth in the number of jobs in the central city is also leading to an

increase in the number of longer distance commuters who need to travel into the central city at peak

times, especially from the north where new housing development is taking place.

Meanwhile the Wellington region as a whole is growing, and this is driving demand for journeys to the

central city and port, and through the central city to reach important destinations such as the airport

and hospital. This latter demand results in increased car travel through the central city as the public

transport system’s design is mainly focused on moving people into and out of the CBD.

These significant movements conflict with the increasing number of buses, pedestrian and cyclists

accessing the central city and moving around within it (as shown in Figure 9), adversely affecting the

amenity of the central city. Many through journeys use the same routes as commuter journeys (e.g.

Vivian Street and the waterfront quays).

In the absence of further improvements to the transport system capacity, the system will struggle to

accommodate growth because:

Growth in walking and cycling will not be supported by the current infrastructure which is

already crowded along key pedestrian routes and lacks a network of safe cycle routes

Growth in public transport demand will soon outstrip capacity (as shown in Figure 12). For

example, it is estimated that the capacity of the train services to the north will be exceeded

by demand within five years without investment. Constrained bus capacity within the CBD is

already affecting reliability and it is estimated that demand will exceed supply within the next

decade. If left unchecked, lack of public transport capacity will result in reduced job growth in

the central city and some people going back to commuting by cars

Growth in vehicular traffic within the LGWM focus area cannot be accommodated by State

Highway 1 in its current form, as some sections of State Highway 1 are already at capacity at

peak times. The few alternative routes to State Highway 1, such as the waterfront quays, have

limited additional capacity and pass through sensitive urban environments.



Figure 9 Cross-movements in Te Aro – morning peak

Figure 10 Travel time variability for some journeys



Figure 11 Number of people entering the central city during the 2016 morning peak (left) and programme forecast 2036 (right)

Figure 12 Public transport capacity and forecast demand



3.3. Transport System Effects

Without remedial action, the net result will be that levels of service will progressively deteriorate for

all modes of transport, resulting in unpredictable journey times (as shown in Figure 10). There will

also be environmental issues, less safe cycling conditions and walking becoming a less attractive

option.

This will create the potential for increased safety risks at conflict points (as shown in Figure 13) and

intensify the impact of unplanned events on the transport system. The limited ability of the transport

system to accommodate growth will undermine the future success of Wellington City and the wider

region.

The relatively low number of corridors that provide access to and within Wellington City, combined

with the potential for natural hazards like earthquakes and storms, and increasing risks resulting from

climate change, mean that hazard events have the potential to disrupt access to the CBD and

surrounding communities. It could take a long time to recover some of these connections as was

illustrated by the recent prolonged closure of State Highway 1 near Kaikoura.

Figure 13 Heatmap of fatal and serious injury crashes 2000-2017 (WCC, NZ Transport Agency)

3.4. Transport System Consequences

In the absence of investment to address the above problems (both causes and effects) the following

consequences are expected:

There will be an increase in crowding on rail and bus services, and the road network will

become increasingly congested. The transport system will be unable to support even the ‘do

minimum’ growth scenario. This will affect housing affordability and people’s choices of

where to live and work



Travel time variability will increase for all modes of transport. This will impact negatively on

the reliability of the system to get people to their destinations on time, leading to losses in

productivity and reduced leisure and personal time. It will also reduce the reliability of goods

reaching the port, airport and other destinations on time

The number of deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians and cyclists will remain

unacceptably high. This will result in social and economic costs, including social trauma, lost

productivity, and increased healthcare costs

Reductions in safety, amenity and convenience will deter walking and cycling, impacting

negatively on the health benefits that come from using active modes and the associated

environmental benefits of reduced transport emissions

Increased noise, pollution and severance will affect the amenity and attractiveness of

Wellington’s central city as a place in which to live, do business and visit

The transport system will remain vulnerable to disruption from day to day incidents and

large-scale hazard events. Smaller disruption events will have more far reaching impacts

because the transport system will be operating at capacity for more of the day. Large scale

hazard events will result in long recovery times for the region’s key lifelines.

3.5. Transport System Opportunities

Addressing the problems identified above creates the opportunity to improve a number of social,

economic and environmental outcomes for the city and region. These key opportunities are to:

Shape urban growth and activate urban regeneration – by significantly increasing accessibility

to the central city and amenity within it, land use intensification will be facilitated in locations

that support compact and sustainable urban form, boosting agglomeration benefits and land

value uplift

Create city streets that are more attractive places to be – through less traffic, slower traffic

speeds, less noise and air pollution, and enhanced street level amenity, city streets will be

safer and more pleasant places for people

Enhance travel choice for access to, from, within and through the central city – through a

range of travel options that provide safe, convenient, attractive, and reliable journeys

Support increased productivity – through more reliable and predictable journey times, people

will be able to use their time more productively and freight efficiencies can be unlocked. Less

disruption from incidents affecting the transport network will mean less lost time and

economic cost to the region. Technology advances will help to unlock the full potential of

transport investment and support more efficient movement of people and freight

Improve community health and wellbeing – through more people walking, cycling and using

public transport, with significant associated health benefits. Better access to employment,

education, services and facilities will contribute to social inclusion and community wellbeing

Support enhanced environmental outcomes – through more people using low or no emission

transport options (walking, cycling and public transport) and through increasing urban

densities near the city centre and other key centres so that more destinations will be within

convenient walking and cycling distances.



Key pieces of evidence for these opportunities and consequences include:

Wellington CBD has the most productive jobs and highest employment density in New

Zealand, with a wage premium of between $13,000 and $20,000.

During the morning peak, 50% of rail passengers arrive between 7:50am and 8:20pm and

40% of people arriving by bus do so between 8:00am and 8:30am. Several public

transport services that arrive during this time are at capacity. Forecast growth will mean

that more services operate at capacity and people will increasingly respond by changing

their travel behaviour.

The commuter rail network is forecast to reach capacity by 2028. The bus network is

forecast to reach capacity by 2026. This could result in 3000 jobs being deferred or

located elsewhere.

Cyclists account for 1% of distance travelled and 20% of transport related deaths and

serious injuries in Wellington City. Nearly 1 in 3 people would prefer to cycle, less than 1

in 10 regularly do. 55% of people say they would cycle more if infrastructure was

improved.

Three out of the ten assessed CBD streets have Very Poor levels of urban amenity

(influenced by traffic volumes, traffic speed, footpath area, vehicle traffic area, footpath

and road material, density of street furniture, and green space coverage).

A large-scale hazard event could disrupt road access to and through Wellington City for

up to three months. Even a relatively small-scale event can come at a significant cost,

with the storm event in June 2013 estimated to cost the region $43M4.

3.5.1. Technological changes Transport technology advances are likely to bring significant benefits to Wellington’s transport

system. For example:

Modern vehicle safety systems will enable vehicles to travel at an optimum distance for any

given speed. In conjunction with autonomous braking this will improve safety outcomes for

vehicle occupants and for pedestrians and cyclists

The advent of autonomous vehicles could make the system more energy efficient through

smoother acceleration and braking. In conjunction with more advanced network

management systems this will make better use of transport infrastructure by keeping traffic

flowing smoothly and reducing ‘stop-start’ events on the network

The increased availability and use of electric vehicles (including electrically assisted bicycles)

will bring major benefits from reduced greenhouse and other emissions

The increased use of mobility-as-a-service (the use of information systems to enable

customers to have more flexibility to choose the mode of travel for particular journeys on a

pay-per-use basis) may lead to reduced car ownership, and a willingness to use other modes

more often than is currently the case.

4 The transport impacts of the 20 June 2013 storm (Ministry of Transport, NZ Transport Agency, KiwiRail,

GWRC)



While technological change will bring major benefits, it also has the potential to be major

‘disruptor’ of the transport system, producing negative results that are not sought by LGWM.

For example:

The advent of autonomous vehicles may lead to more vehicle kilometres travelling on the

network, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. It may also act as a

disincentive for people to use public transport, adding to congestion

The increased use of mobility-as-a-service may lead to the increased circulation of taxis and

ride sharing vehicles around the network waiting to pick up passengers. This could worsen

congestion

A particular issue will be the impact of autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing on the

effectiveness of parking controls. At present the high cost of parking in the central city plays a

crucial role in managing demand for private vehicle use, particularly for commuting journeys.

The use of ride-sharing and potentially autonomous vehicles could see a reduction in the

effectiveness of this pricing mechanism as the main demand management tool.

In summary, technological changes may be helpful in addressing key problems, but there is

uncertainty about the net effect of technological changes on the key issue of growing demand for

trips with constrained network capacity. It seems very unlikely that technology will solve this problem

alone without other changes also being made to the way the transport system is configured and

operated.

PART A – Programme Objectives


4. PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES 4.1. Urban Design and Transport Principles

Feedback from early public engagement in mid-2016 indicated that people want a liveable city that is

easy to get around. They also want less traffic and congestion, together with good public transport,

walkability, and the ability to cycle safely. Access to the waterfront and harbour, and availability of

parking are also key issues for many people.

Using the results from public feedback the LGWM team developed 12 urban design and transport

principles, which are summarised under the key elements of the Wellington future vision in Figure 14.



Wellington Future Vision

Let’s Get Wellington Moving Guiding Principles

Figure 14 Alignment between Wellington future vision and LGWM guiding principles



4.2. LGWM Investment Objectives

Based on initial feedback from the public in 2016 and the formulation of the 12 guiding principles, a

set of programme objectives was developed. Following further engagement with the public in 2017,

these objectives were refined and developed into investment objectives through the addition of Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The five investment objectives with their associated KPIs are summarised below:

OBJECTIVE: A transport system that…

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Description

Enhances the liveability of the central city

Amenity Index

A measure of the quality of the urban environment including greenspace, urban

design, traffic volumes/speeds, and pedestrian space

Carbon dioxide emissions

Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city

Urban development

potential

An assessment of the opportunities for urban development and value uplift

Provides more efficient and reliable access to support growth

Network catchment

The number of people living and working within 30 minutes of key locations

Travel time reliability

The reliability of travel time for journeys by different modes to key regional locations

Reduces reliance on private vehicle travel

System occupancy

The ratio of people travelling to the central city (by all modes) against private vehicles travelling

to the central city

Level of service for walking

Delays for people walking in the central city

Level of service for cycling

An assessment of the quality of cycling facilities

Improves safety for all users

Safety for walking and

cycling

An estimate of the safety benefits for people walking and cycling in and around the central

city

Is adaptable to disruptions and future uncertainty

Network resilience

An assessment of the network’s resilience to disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards

These investment objectives were subsequently developed into SMART objectives (Specific,

Measurable, Attributable, Realistic, Time bound), as shown in Section 9 and Appendix C.

PART B – Developing the Programme


PART B – DEVELOPING THE PROGRAMME Overview

An integrated and multi-modal improvement programme includes changes to infrastructure, services,

operations and policies. The key challenge in developing a recommended LGWM investment

programme was to carefully consider the many different ways of combining interventions into

potential investment programmes, before narrowing down the options to a shortlist, and finally

reaching conclusions on the preferred way forward.

Developing the programme was carried out in several stages. The first stage (summarised in Part B1)

was to develop an overall strategic response to address the problems and opportunities set out in

Part A. Part B2 summarises some of the analysis done during and following the programme

development. The final stage (summarised in Part B3) was to iteratively develop and assess

programme options through a longlist and shortlist assessment process to arrive at a recommended

programme of investment.

Summary of Part B1

The following methodology was followed to develop the strategic response (summarised in Figure

15):

Identify a wide range of interventions and select ones that could be effectively combined into

investment scenarios to address the problems and opportunities identified in Part A

Compile the selected interventions into ‘test scenarios’ that explore the key dimensions of

choice for addressing the problems and opportunities at a system level

Assess the test scenarios qualitatively against the objectives, and use the insights from this

assessment to develop the overall strategic response

Develop illustrative investment scenarios for the purpose of engaging with the public about

the strategic response and the scale of investment they would like to see

Develop KPIs that underpin the programme objectives in order to create SMART investment

objectives

Figure 15 Programme Development Methodology – Part B1

Potential Interventions

Test Scenarios Strategic Response Engagement

Scenarios SMART Objectives

PART B – Developing the Programme


Summary of Part B2

The following analyses were undertaken as LGWM developed and refined programme options

(summarised in Figure 16):

Analysis of emerging programme components that was undertaken during the longlist and

shortlist programme option development.

Ongoing further analysis of recommended programme of investment components to refine

and inform the programme.


Summary of Part B3

The following actions were undertaken to develop and assess programme options (summarised in

Figure 17):

Develop a longlist of programme options and assess these for their performance against the

investment objectives

Select a short list of programme options and refine the assessment of their performance

against the investment objectives

Identify a recommended investment programme, optimise the programme detail, assess the

programme, and identify key risks, uncertainties and opportunities.


Programme Development Analysis Further Analysis

Longlist Programme Options Shortlist Programmes Options Recommended Programme of

Investment

PART B1 – Strategic Response: Potential Interventions


PART B1 – STRATEGIC RESPONSE This part summarises the process that was followed to develop the overall strategic response to

address the problems and opportunities set out in Part A.

5. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS 5.1. Intervention Development and Assessment

The initial process of identifying possible interventions is summarised below. A more detailed

explanation can be found in Note 1 – Intervention Longlist Screen in Appendix D.

5.1.1. Identification An initial list of interventions was developed in a LGWM workshop. The process took into account

feedback from the LGWM website, the LGWM phone survey, panel surveys from Greater Wellington

Regional Council and Wellington City Council and feedback collected from stakeholders by the New

Zealand Transport Agency. LGWM also looked at earlier work on Wellington’s transport options, such

as the 2013 Wellington Public Transport Spine Study.

5.1.2. Categorisation The second stage in narrowing down the choices was to group the potential interventions by

categories. The categories were simple groupings by common characteristics – for example, bringing

together all of the potential interventions related to public transport.

The set of categories adopted was:

Land-use intensification Land-use dispersal Manage demand: financial Manage demand: non-financial Enhance supply: high investment in road capacity Enhance supply: high investment in public transport Incremental improvements: road network Incremental improvements: public transport network Enhance interventions to motor vehicle use Resilience-specific.

5.1.3. Assessment The potential interventions were subsequently assessed by a transport planning and evaluation group

to determine which interventions should be candidates to be included in possible scenarios and

programme options. The large majority were classified as ‘keep’ i.e. candidates for inclusion in the

scenarios and long-list programme options.

The possible reasons not to consider a potential intervention further were:

Fatal Flaw – A potential intervention had some characteristic that, in the professional

judgment of the evaluators, meant it could not contribute to a possible programme option.

Such reasons included expected cost being disproportionate to possible benefits,

impracticality, or the concept having been tried previously without worthwhile results.

Exclude – Outside the programme scope or not an intervention that could be influenced by

the programme.

Given – An intervention that had already been committed.

PART B1 – Strategic Response: Test Scenarios


6. TEST SCENARIOS The standard business case methodology for this stage would have been to develop a longlist of

programme options that would be compiled from a subset of the interventions. However, this would

have resulted in the production in a very large number of programme options due to the complexity

of the Wellington transport system.

In order to narrow down the range of programme options to a manageable number, ‘test’ scenarios

were developed to explore the likely range of realistic programme options at a high level. Scenarios

were developed comprising interventions that were indicative in nature, but sufficiently detailed to

explore interdependencies and enable qualitative assessment.

6.1. Test Scenario Development (2016)

Development of a series of test scenarios began by considering the qualitative gap in the level of

service for each mode, for each of four problem statement areas: reliability and economic

productivity, liveability, safety, and resilience. Different scenarios focusing on each of the four

problem areas were then created by considering the relative scale of different types of intervention

that might achieve the desired outcomes for the emphasised problem area.

The different intervention areas were:

Walking

Cycling

Public Transport

Commuter and Through Traffic

Local Streets Traffic

Hard TDM (pricing-based travel demand management)

Soft TDM (encouragement-based travel demand planning e.g. school travel planning)

Operations.

This resulted in 15 test scenarios, targeted at achieving outcomes in LGWM problem areas and with

each scenario focusing on a different approach to addressing the problems and opportunities. Some

of the scenarios were intentionally extreme in order to test whether focusing on a single type of

investment (such as additional road capacity or strengthened demand management) would perform

well in addressing the problem areas. Table 5 sets out the relative scale of interventions to achieve

outcomes in each of the problem areas for the fifteen test scenarios. Appendix E shows the types of

interventions that might be expected to deliver these outcomes.



Table 5 Summary of Longlist Test Scenarios

EMPHASIS ANTICIPATED OUTCOME AND RELATIVE SCALE OF INTERVENTION

Rel

iab

ility

an

d E

con

om

ic P

rod

uct

ivit

y

Test Scenario A - An economically

productive and inclusive city has a high

level of motorised and public transport

mobility, allowing its citizens and

employees convenient, direct and rapid

access to all parts of the city and wider

region. Any excess demand to the city

centre is self-managed.

Test Scenario B - An economically productive,

modern city has very high standards of pedestrian

connectivity and a high quality environment,

especially in its city centre. The city is served with a

very effective public transport system, while the

roads have sufficient capacity for essential traffic.

Test Scenario C - An economically

productive city has an effective,

high capacity strategic road and

public transport network, with a

vibrant people-focused city centre.

Test Scenario D - An economically productive city has a high

level of motorised mobility and good public transport,

allowing its citizens and employees convenient and direct

access to most parts of the city and wider region.

Test Scenario E - A productive, economically rational city has very high

standards of pedestrian connectivity and a high quality environment,

especially in its city centre. The city is served with a very effective public

transport system, while road use is managed with advanced systems to

ensure availability for essential traffic.

Live

abili

ty

Test Scenario F - A liveable city is one where there are low

levels of road traffic and most peoples' needs for travel are

met through walking, cycling and public transport. Roads

are prioritised for more sustainable modes and managed

with advanced systems to ensure availability for essential

traffic.

Test Scenario G - A highly liveable city has easy, affordable access for all,

with excellent public transport, many shared use and calmed streets and a

strong feeling of safety.

Test Scenario H - A highly liveable city is one where local

streets are prioritised for people and separated from high

levels of motorised traffic

Test Scenario I - A city has high liveability when people and freight heading

to essential facilities throughout the city have high levels of vehicular access

while the city centre is more served by other modes that don't compete for

space with through traffic.



EMPHASIS ANTICIPATED OUTCOME AND RELATIVE SCALE OF INTERVENTION

Safe

ty

Test Scenario J - A safe city is one where

the evidential safety issues are

addressed as a priority. Vulnerable

modes enjoy high levels of protection.

Test Scenario K - A safe city has vulnerable users

separated from general traffic with road space

prioritised for active modes and public transport.

Traffic is managed to reduce higher speed crashes

with advanced systems that also ensure sufficient

availability for essential traffic.

Test Scenario L - A safe city is one

where people are unlikely to have

a serious crash on the roads as

they are designed and operated to

the appropriate standard for their

use. People feel secure when

travelling on public transport.

Res

ilien

ce

Test Scenario M - A resilient city has

focused on the evidential transport

network issues and prioritised measures

to address them.

Test Scenario N - A more resilient city is one where

there are multiple transport options and where the

transport networks are suitably engineered.

Effective preparations have been made for

recovery.

Test Scenario O - A resilient city is

secure against a variety of natural

threats. It has redundancy in its

transport system which is well-

built and unlikely to suffer

catastrophic failure.



6.2. Test Scenario Assessment

High level multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was then carried out on 12 of the test scenarios to assess their likely performance in achieving the investment objectives and their underpinning key result areas (shown as Tier 2 criteria in Table 6 below)5. Three scenarios developed to focus on resilience outcomes were not included in this assessment as it was deemed unrealistic to pursue a programme focused solely on resilience outcomes.

Table 6 Test scenario MCA criteria

TIER 1 TIER 2

A transport system

that enhances the

liveability of the

central city

Improved walkability in the CBD with better access to the waterfront

Enhanced urban environment

Reduced impact of motorised transport in CBD

Minimised adverse effects on natural environment

Minimised impacts on built environment

No increase to number of vehicles in the CBD

A transport system

that provides more

efficient and reliable

access to support

growth

Increased reliability and improved access to and from CBD

Consistency with the Urban Growth Plan and Wellington Regional

Strategy

Improved throughput of people and goods on strategic corridors

Increased reliability of access to and from the airport, hospital and port

Transport demand is able to be spread across the day (not just in peaks)

Reduced PT travel time variability

A transport system

that reduces reliance

on private vehicle

travel

Increased PT catchment

Improved pedestrian mode share

Improved cycling mode share

Increased vehicle occupancy

Improved PT mode share

A transport system

that improves safety

for all users

Reduced deaths and serious injuries for road users

Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists

5 Key result areas were initially developed as a way of developing performance measures for each of the

objectives and were superseded with the development of SMART investment objective KPIs.



A transport system

that is adaptable to

disruptions and future

uncertainty

Adaptability to be able to respond and recover from unplanned events

Adaptability and flexibility to cope with future uncertainty and

technologies

Implementability Consentability

Feasibility

Cost Capital cost

Operational cost

The MCA results and accompanying report are shown in Appendix F. The MCA process outcomes

were summarised as:

Scenario B and C were the equal best performing scenarios against all of the criteria assessed

Scenario C was the best performing scenario against the second efficiency and growth criteria

(Consistency with the Urban Growth Plan and Wellington Regional Strategy)

Scenario H was the third ranked scenario in the assessment

Scenario E performed best against the third criteria, reducing reliance on private vehicles, due

to the combination of pricing and PT enhancements

Scenario J was the most implementable scenario

Scenario L was one of the poorer performing scenarios as whilst it did not have significant

impact, it also did not score highly against the majority of the assessment criteria

Scenarios A and D were the lowest ranked of those assessed, however scenarios A and D also

performed well against the criteria associated with and efficient and reliable transport system

that supports growth.

6.3. Test Scenarios Conclusion

The assessment of the test scenarios produced useful insights, and these were used as a basis for

developing the LGWM Strategic Response.

The key insights were:

The performance of the test scenarios was variable across the full range of key result areas.

Extreme scenarios did not perform well against the key result areas. Wellington has a

complex transport system that is highly interdependent. Focusing on specific outcomes of the

transport system means that other outcomes may not also improve or may become worse as

trade-offs occur. It was concluded that a holistic multi-modal approach was needed

A pricing-only approach (with optimised use of the existing system), would not on its own

address the fundamental issue that transport demand is increasing because the city is

growing, and the current transport system will not have the capacity to accommodate the

extra journeys in the long term

Increasing the capacity of State Highway 1 in isolation would not produce acceptable levels of

service for traffic accessing the central city due to the already constrained nature of the CBD



street network. Additional capacity and parking within the street network would be

undesirable from an urban amenity and place-function perspective

Movement within the central city is important but there is also a need to enable people to

access the central city from more distant areas. This would need to be by walking, cycling, a

high-quality public transport network, and supported by travel demand management

There are opportunities to improve the management and operation of the existing transport

system and the way in which people use it. For example, optimising traffic signals to provide

more green time to pedestrians near the railway station when trains arrive. These

opportunities could be tailored to maximise the benefits of whichever wider scenario was

eventually selected.

In light of these insights, a decision was made by LGWM to develop a set of multimodal scenarios that

would integrate the best performing elements from the test scenarios to produce a range of

illustrative scenarios that would perform more consistently across all the key result areas.

6.4. Community and Stakeholder Workshops (early 2017)

In March and April 2017 LGWM held a series of community and stakeholder workshops on key issues,

facilitated by an independent research company. The purpose of the workshops was to seek feedback

on whether the work was heading in the right direction, and views on what was needed to be covered

by the scenarios for public engagement later in the year.

The test scenarios that were assessed as performing well in the MCA assessment were used as a basis

for identifying focus areas to seek feedback on:

Better public transport

Improving the State Highway

Active transport improvements (walking and cycling)

Managing travel demand.

Attendees identified the following information as something that would like to see covered by

scenarios for public engagement later in 2017:

Evidence that supports each scenario

Which interventions have been rejected and why

Descriptions of land use and planning constraints

Costs for each scenario

How each scenario fits into an integrated and holistic plan for the city and the region

More information about specific interventions.

PART B1 – Strategic Response: Developing the Strategic Response


7. DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIC RESPONSE LGWM developed a strategic response to the problems and opportunities identified above. The

strategic response is summarised in Table 7.

It sets out the overall approach to improving Wellington’s transport system that would address the

identified problems and opportunities in a way that best achieves the programme objectives. It also

provides examples of high level ‘strategic interventions’ that will help transform the current transport

system into the desired one.

The strategic response acknowledges that Wellington will be able to meet the challenge of growth –

to absorb additional residents and to continue to sustainably perform its core economic function –

only if the transport system can move more people, goods and services reliably without more

vehicles, as part of an integrated urban strategy for the city. This means:

Supporting a safe and liveable city where many more people will live, work and play

Recognising and balancing the needs of all transport users and those affected by the

transport system

Increasing resilience to incidents, natural events and disruptive technology

Encouraging development in a way that supports more sustainable transport choices.

Without implementing such an integrated strategy, the challenges facing Wellington’s transport

system will threaten to derail its productivity, liveability and attractiveness.

PART B1 – Strategic Response: Developing the Strategic Response


Table 7 Strategic Response Table

TRANSPORT SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES STRATEGIC APPROACH STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS

A transport system that moves more people, goods and services reliably with fewer vehicles, while:

Supporting a safe and liveable city where many more people will live, work and play

Recognising and balancing the needs of all transport users and those affected by the transport system

Increasing resilience to incidents, natural events and disruptive technology

Encouraging development in a way that supports more sustainable transport choices.

Make the most of what we have

Optimise the transport system and make it safer

Encourage people to walk, cycle, and use public transport more, and use cars less

Deliver a step change in public transport

Substantially improve public transport capacity, quality and performance

Encourage urban intensification near public transport

Improve journeys to, from and in the central city

Prioritise people walking, cycling, and using public transport on key corridors

Improve accessibility and amenity of places and streets

Ensure goods and services journeys are reliable

Improve journeys through and around the central city

Reduce conflicts between different transport users and traffic flows

Increase the resilience and reliability of our transport corridors, especially to the hospital, port, and airport

Encourage mode shift to walking, cycling, and public transport

Enable mode shift with improvements to walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure, and land use policies

Create dedicated/priority routes to support key changes

Reduce road space for general traffic in the central city and along dedicated/ priority routes

Manage the network to limit increases in general traffic and operate the network safely and efficiently

Encourage through traffic to relocate away from the central city and other sensitive locations

PART B1 – Strategic Response: Scenarios for Engagement


8. SCENARIOS FOR ENGAGEMENT 8.1. Engagement Scenarios Development

To illustrate how the strategic response might be translated into a programme of interventions,

LGWM developed four future scenarios with differing levels of transport intervention. The scenarios

formed the basis of a public engagement exercise in late 2017. Public and stakeholder feedback was

sought on the scenarios, and the willingness to accept increasing impacts (on-street parking, built

environment and heritage, environment, construction disruption, cost) in order to achieve increasing

benefits against the objectives.

The scenarios were incremental, as shown in Table 8.

Scenario A included making most of what we have got by prioritising walking, public transport

and cycling in the central city, and improving amenity and safety in the CBD

Scenario B included additional investment, reducing conflicts at the Basin Reserve enabling

current bus services to be transformed into a mass transit system on spine routes, and

providing better access to the east

Scenario C included additional investment, reducing conflicts with vehicle traffic for

pedestrians, public transport services and cyclists in Te Aro, improving access to the airport

and other regional destinations from the north, and unlocking redevelopment opportunities

in Te Aro

Scenario D included additional investment, increasing capacity through the Terrace Tunnel,

enabling less through traffic on waterfront quays, improving safety and amenity in the CBD,

and improving access to the port from the north.

A more complete description of the scenarios can be found in the publicly available engagement

material6.

Table 8 Summary of Engagement Scenarios

SCENARIO RATIONALE KEY INTERVENTIONS

Scenario

A

Prioritise walking, public transport and

cycling in the central city

Improve amenity and safety in the CBD

Dedicated bus lanes on the Golden Mile, improved walking

and cycling environment in the central city, with lower CBD

speed limits

Use traffic signalling and other intelligent transport systems

to align waiting times at junctions and crossings with agreed

priorities for different users of the transport system

Scenario B

As above plus:

Reduce conflicts at the Basin Reserve

enabling current bus services to be

transformed into a mass transit system on

spine routes

Provide better access to the east

Scenario A plus:

Basin Reserve grade separation, Mt Victoria tunnel

duplication and Ruahine/Wellington St widening (with public

transport, active mode and high occupancy vehicle priority),

enables extension of continuous prioritised public transport

spine to the hospital, Kilbirnie and the airport

6 http://getwellymoving.co.nz/public-engagement/



Scenario C

As above plus:

Reduce conflicts with vehicle traffic for

pedestrians, public transport services and

cyclists in Te Aro

Improve access to the airport and other

regional destinations from the north

Unlock redevelopment opportunities in Te

Aro

Scenario B plus:

Shift eastbound State Highway 1 from Vivian St to Karo Drive

alignment with cut and cover sections

Change priorities on Vivian Street to reduce severance and

improve amenity

Scenario D

As above plus:

Remove Terrace Tunnel bottleneck, enabling

less through traffic on waterfront quays

Improve safety and amenity in the CBD

Improve access to the port from the north

Scenario C plus:

Duplication of Terrace Tunnel, an additional southbound lane

on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay and

removal of traffic lane on waterfront quays

8.2. Engagement Scenarios Assessment

Prior to beginning engagement, LGWM undertook a high-level assessment of the four shortlisted

scenarios against the programme guiding principles and programme objectives so that the

engagement would have context on the relative scale of benefits and impacts of the four scenarios.

The assessment was based on feedback from a panel of technical specialists, using a combination of

both qualitative and quantitative measures. The technical specialist assessment is shown in Appendix

G. The assessment was indicative only as the scenarios were high level approaches. Their purpose was

to help understand how different large improvement projects might perform as a package.

A summary of the assessment is shown in Table 9 and Table 10. A more complete description of the

scenario’s assessment can be found in the publicly available engagement material7.

7 http://getwellymoving.co.nz/public-engagement/



Table 9 Engagement Scenarios benefits



Table 10 Engagement Scenarios impacts



8.3. Engagement Feedback

The key messages from the engagement were:

Broad support for the interventions in Scenario A – but most thought it did not go far enough

This suggests an initial focus should be on the following as a minimum:

o Optimising operation of existing infrastructure (“early improvements”)

o Lowering speeds in central city

o Restricting private vehicle access on the Golden Mile

o Improving walkability and cycling in central city

o Prioritising buses on the spine route through the central city

There is a need to assess options for:

o Mass transit

o Basin and Mt Victoria

o Karo Drive/Te Aro

o Pricing.

This engagement also highlighted several key themes which are summarised as follows:

Immediate refinement and long-term changes are sought for public transport

Reduction of congestion is universally supported

Widespread support for active transport infrastructure and prioritisation

Opposition to infrastructure development which increases car use

A regional, integrated approach is required

It is time to act, while being mindful of cost

Predicted changes require future-focused solutions

Basin traffic flow issues need to be solved, but diverse views are held

Wellington-specific solutions required.

The engagement feedback, and the Global Research summary of the feedback is publicly available

online8.

8.4. LGWM Response to Engagement Scenarios Feedback

LGWM developed a response to the engagement feedback to demonstrate how the insights from

engagement would be taken forward. This is summarised below in Table 11. A more complete

explanation of this summary is publicly available9.

8 https://getwellymoving.co.nz/about/public-engagement/feedback/

9 https://www.getwellymoving.co.nz/home/response-to-nov-dec-2017-public-engagement/



Table 11 LGWM response to key themes from engagement scenarios feedback

THEME WORK REQUIRED PROPOSED DIRECTION

1. Support for better public transport – now and long term

Complete “early improvements”, including those proposed in feedback (which are not already committed to in public transport programmes).

Identify public transport improvements that can proceed without major investment.

Include early improvements in earlier stages of the Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI) where they align with LGWM objectives.

Ensure early public transport interventions are compatible with wider RPI.

Investigate routes and options for mass transit to the airport, and consider:

Network planning (including interaction with bus network)

Urban development/demand

Feasibility and costing

Incorporate preferred mass transit into RPI, and identify infrastructure to support it.

Identify options for accelerated delivery.

Highlight city-building potential of mass transit.

2. Universal support for less congestion

Use feedback to help set targets for travel time and variability KPIs for RPI.

Develop KPIs for “amenity” and “system occupancy” (ratio of people to vehicles).

Consider congestion charging.

Include interventions to reduce negative impacts of congestion on the city.

Indicate potential impact of congestion charging as part of the RPI narrative.

3. Widespread support for walking and cycling improvements and priority

Develop a more comprehensive programme of walking improvements, guided by feedback where practical

Include more detailed walking improvements in earlier stages of RPI.

Include improvements beyond the CBD (e.g. Cobham Drive crossing).

Describe a connected cycling network in the city, guided by feedback where practical Include a more detailed programme of cycling improvements into the earlier stages of the recommended programme

4. Opposition to new infrastructure that encourages car use

Ensure analysis provides info on multi-modal and redevelopment benefits.

Develop a central narrative that better describes our multi-modal approach

Ensure new infrastructure supports LGWM multi-modal priorities, and is not just for cars.

Note that focus is on a nil net increase in vehicles.

5. A regional, integrated approach is required Report on wider regional issues that have helped shape RPI.

Undertake further work, either as LGWM or in parallel (by partners), to:

Improve public transport to the north and west

Develop complementary measures to improve public transport uptake around region

Reduce overall regional trip demand and spread peak demand

Ensure the RPI includes reference to the type of interventions needed beyond the LGWM area.

6. It is time to act, while being mindful of cost Complete work on the early improvements programme

Include economic analysis in assessment

Review LGWM objectives and KPIs against the new Government Policy Statement

Bring all improvements practical into the earlier stages of the RPI.

Demonstrate how the RPI contributes to the new GPS.

7. Future-proofed solutions are required Review technology improvements that are consistent with LGWM objectives and can be incorporated into recommended programme.

Report on technology issues that have helped shape RPI.

Explain how RPI will enable the network to adapt to/facilitate technology change.

Include review/decision points in RPI that allow for technology change.

8. Basin traffic flow issues need to be solved, but diverse views are held

Use the feedback to help define parameters in the RPI around the Basin improvements. Include a preferred approach to Basin issues in the RPI, and outline what needs to be addressed

in the next stage.

Describe a process to enable public input into design at Basin.

9. Wellington-specific solutions required Use the feedback on resilience, topography, and Wellington-specific issues to help develop and refine the recommended programme.

Ensure the RPI illustrates how interventions are responding to Wellington-specific issues.

PART B1 – Strategic Response: SMART Objective Development


9. SMART OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT Based on initial feedback from the public in 2016 (which culminated in the formulation of the 12

guiding principles), a set of benefit statements/programme objectives was developed by LGWM for

further engagement with the public in 2017.

These objectives were then developed into SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Attributable,

Realistic, Time bound) through the refinement of KPIs. Appendix A, Table v shows a close alignment

between the objectives and the principles, reflecting the importance given to public views about what

the programme should deliver for Wellington.

The five investment objectives with their associated KPIs are set out below with a more complete

presentation shown in Appendix C. KPIs 1-I0 are intended to be used to assess the performance of

different programme options and guide decision making. The remaining (unnumbered) KPIs are

intended to help monitor programme success.

Investment Objective 1: A transport system that enhances the liveability of the central city

KPI 1: Amenity Index - The quality of the urban environment, including greenspace, urban

design, traffic volumes/speeds and pedestrian space

KPI 2: Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city

KPI 3: Opportunities for urban development and value uplift

KPI: Monitor traffic Noise

KPI: Monitor liveability Survey – Quality of Road Network, Quality of Public Transport

(Economist Intelligence Unit Global)

KPI: Monitor air quality – particulates, NO2

Investment Objective 2: A transport system that reduces reliance on private vehicle travel

KPI 4: Improve the system occupancy - The ratio of people travelling to the central city (by all

modes) against the number of private vehicles

KPI 5: Delays for people walking in the central city

KPI 6: The quality of cycling facilities - ‘Danish method’ cycling infrastructure level of service

KPI: Monitor mode share within CBD / VKT within the CBD

Investment Objective 3: A transport system that provides more efficient and reliable access to support growth

KPI 7: The number of people living and working within 30 mins of key destinations

KPI 8: The reliability of travel time by different modes to key regional destinations

KPI: Monitor number of people travelling to CBD

Investment Objective 4: A transport system that improves safety for all users

KPI 9: Deaths and serious injuries for people walking and cycling in and around the

central city

KPI: Monitor total casualties by severity and by mode

Investment Objective 5: A transport system that is adaptable to disruptions and future uncertainty

KPI 10: Network resilience to disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards

KPI: Monitor lane availability reductions due to unplanned events

PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Programme Development Analysis


PART B2 – ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMME ELEMENTS This part summarises some of the technical analysis undertaken and commissioned by LGWM in developing

and refining the recommended programme of investment. High level analysis was undertaken to build

confidence that interventions could address the issues identified. Sufficient options were considered in order

to move forward to more detailed investigation and a thorough optioneering process.

10. PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Engagement, ongoing investigations, and discussion between LGWM programme partners highlighted a need

to undertake further investigation in urban development potential, pricing, future uncertainty and technology,

mass transit, State Highway 1 through Te Aro, and the transport system near the Basin Reserve. The

development of this work was iterative during the longlist and shortlist programme option development. A

summary of some of the technical documents referenced in this section can be found in Appendix N.

10.1. LGWM as an enabler for urban development

Transport improvements impact on urban development potential and property values in a number of ways:

Transport improvements result in improvements to the accessibility of locations (considering both speed

and capacity) and the amenity / quality of travel and the urban environment (i.e. nicer vehicles, urban

realm improvements). These benefits are ‘capitalised’ into land values – i.e. people are willing to pay more

to live in more accessible places or more attractive environments.

Improved accessibility may also make locations more productive by increasing their ‘economic mass’, e.g.

number of jobs, level of economic activity. Economic theory and evidence on agglomeration economies

finds that spatial concentrations of economic activity are associated with higher levels of economic

productivity resulting from enhanced ‘sharing’, ‘learning’ and ‘matching’ mechanisms. This may lead to

further benefits that are in turn (partly) capitalised into land values.

Firms and workers may respond by relocating to areas that have experienced improved productivity /

accessibility. This may in turn strengthen agglomeration forces (albeit potentially at the cost of some

increased congestion) and lead to increased land value uplift.

Work was undertaken to understand the potential impact of LGWM on land use changes (mainly population

and jobs distribution) and property values. The relevant papers are summarised below.

10.1.1. Possible Impacts of LGWM Interventions on Land Values (LGWM, June 2018) This paper examines the possible impacts of two LGWM interventions on land values in Wellington City. One

intervention is a vehicle tunnel in Te Aro which removes eastbound State Highway traffic from Vivian Street

and allows an urban park to be created on top of the tunnel. The other intervention is mass transit from

Wellington Station to the Airport. The paper considers two forms of mass transit: light rail and bus rapid

transit.

The paper finds that mass transit could increase surrounding land values by up to $1 billion. The level of

increase depends on the amenity improvements and District Plan zoning changes that are included in the

project and the nature of the mass transit system that is provided. Rezoning can result in significant value

uplift where land use is currently low density and interventions spur development to higher density levels.

Given that the CBD and Te Aro are already zoned for high density, there is little additional potential benefit to

be realised in these locations. The value uplift associated with mass transit assumes that rezoning in Newtown

through to Rongotai could achieve mixed use, higher density development alongside mass transit.



In contrast, the paper concludes that removal of State Highway traffic from Vivian Street is unlikely to

significantly increase surrounding property values. However, the opportunity to increase green space in Te Aro

through the creation of a new park above the tunnel may improve property values, but will likely have a

localised and small impact. The potential total land value benefit of a Te Aro tunnel could be up to $19 million

in 2043 (undiscounted).

This work was then externally peer reviewed in June 2018.

10.1.2. Land use change arising from the Let’s Get Welly Moving programme (MRCagney, July 2018) This report analyses the potential impact of LGWM on the future distribution of population and employment

in Greater Wellington. It draws upon recently published guidance in the UK’s Transport Analysis Guidance

(WebTAG) as well as a recent NZ Transport Agency research report on ‘dynamic WEBs’ (Volterra Partners,

2017).

The authors estimate that there may be annual economic benefits on the order of $5,000 to $10,000 per

additional city centre job that is ‘unlocked’ by the LGWM programme. These benefits are additional to

conventional transport benefits and wider economic benefits measured under a ‘static’ land use scenario.

The authors have assumed that LGWM will affect how projected future growth is distributed, but that it will

not increase the overall regional growth rate. Under their ‘composite’ scenario for land use change:

The city centre’s population is predicted to be slightly lower than in LGWM’s ‘base case’ scenario, while

employment is predicted to be slightly higher

The remainder of Wellington City would experience increases in both population and employment

Other territorial authorities would experience reductions in population and employment.

These changes are expected to have the following impacts:

Increase demand for the new rapid transit spine by increasing the residential population along the

corridor and increasing city centre employment

Increase economic productivity by moderately increasing the share of regional employment located in the

city centre and in the Newtown area

Potentially generate other land use change benefits through revitalisation in the Newtown area.

Note that the modelling does not include the effect a cordon charge would have on land uses and values.

10.2. Pricing

Managing demand, particularly at peak times, is an intervention that can improve the efficiency and operation

of the system without adding significant system capacity. This can be achieved in a number of ways. One

option that LGWM has considered at a high level is pricing. The Wellington central city lends itself to pricing to

a certain extent, due to its urban form and function, network characteristics, travel patterns, and public

transport alternatives.

Pricing could take many forms, including a parking levy, an inner cordon charge, an outer cordon charge, a

State Highway 1 toll, a GPS based charge, or some combination. LGWM testing of these pricing tools has

assumed changes to the current legislative framework, and limited consideration was given to the

practicalities of implementation and enforcement at this stage of investigation.

Pricing could deliver significant benefits, such as reduced congestion, reduced emissions and improved

amenity values. It could also defer or remove the need for significant highway infrastructure interventions and

provide revenue that could be used to invest in public transport, walking and cycling facilities. However, if not



carefully considered and planned, pricing can result in undesirable outcomes such as re-routing traffic to

sensitive areas.

10.3. Alternative Futures and Technology

10.3.1. Alternative Futures Forecasting the effects of land use and transport change is an inherently uncertain activity. As such, LGWM

has tested a number of alternative future scenarios to understand how the programme performs under a

range of conditions. These have included both medium and high population and employment growth

scenarios, redistributing the growth along core public transport spines, and scenarios with variable growth

rates between different transport modes. As the programme develops further, additional analysis will be

undertaken to ascertain how uncertainty might affect future outcomes and incorporate this work into

developing a programme that is flexible and adaptable to change.

In order to account for uncertainty in relation to future travel behaviour and preferences, two future

outcomes have been represented and used to assess the programme:

‘Trend future’ - Continuation of recent trend growth with reference to commuter trips to Wellington

CBD in morning peak - all future growth in peak hour trips to Wellington CBD assigned to active modes

or public transport

‘Balanced future’ - A more balanced future with small increases in peak period car demand but more

significant increases in PT and active mode trips to the CBD.

In order to account for uncertainty in relation to future growth and land use, two future outcomes have been

represented and used to assess the programme:

A medium growth and land use scenario developed from Profile ID population projections which are

themselves developed in collaboration with regional territorial authorities and broadly correspond to

Statistics NZ medium population projections. This scenario is ‘probable, plausible and achievable’ -

analysis undertaken by the territorial authorities shows that the capacity (of land) exists to cater for

the level of development envisaged

An alternative high growth and land use scenario that assumes higher population and employment

growth. This is distributed according to current forecast distributions, with some re-distribution of

population growth to areas that benefit from improved accessibility resulting from the LGWM

programme. No substantive work has been undertaken to understand whether the capacity (of land)

and other constraints (e.g. water infrastructure, plan changes) could accommodate the level of

development envisaged.

10.3.2. Technology As discussed in Section 3.5.1, the potential impacts of technological advances in the medium-long term can be

used as a catalyst for improving transport outcomes, for example, in the areas of safety and emissions. LGWM

has not identified any specific items that are required to facilitate these changes.

However, there are areas of technological change where LGWM as identified an opportunity to support or

facilitate in order to maximise transport outcomes as follows:

Digital Connectivity

Use of digital connectivity to avoid unnecessary journeys where economic, through continued and

increased working with employers and schools to plan travel.



Shared Mobility

Integrating all the region’s mobility service providers into an integrated payment and journey planning

platform (mobility-as-a-service) to optimise use of the vehicle fleet and improve vehicle occupancy –

signalling Wellington as wishing to be an early adopter of any mobility-as-a-service national initiatives

Further collaborations such as the NEC Smart Cities initiative

Implementing LGWM may result in infrastructure that could encourage shared mobility, including

hubs where people interchange from shared services onto mass transit or other shared modes

(allowing seamless transfers).

Autonomous Vehicles

As aspects of any preferred programme advance in detail and investigation, it is important to consider

how autonomous vehicles can integrate with the transport system; especially given that mass transit

vehicles are likely early adopters of full automation. Regulatory impacts are best addressed at the

national level.

Electric Vehicles

Further stages of LGWM will consider how any proposed electric public transport vehicles could be

charged (e.g. while in motion or at signals)

Consider on-street parking with charging facilities to raise the visibility of electric vehicles along with

shared mobility.

On-street parking

Use of parking occupancy data to responsively price (e.g. by time of day, level of demand), and

identify opportunities to reassign parking to other uses either permanently or dynamically e.g.

assigning a carshare park, providing a peak time mass transit lane, supporting cycle lanes that reduce

parking or reassigning space for non-transport uses.

Most of these tactical decisions only need to be taken at the strategic level at this stage. Actual improvements

and changes can be accommodated within the LGWM programme as it is developed, through normal

Regional/National Land Transport Plan cycles. For example, the technology for charging electric vehicles at

traffic lights could be implemented simultaneously with normally scheduled road resealing as the new

charging technology becomes available. It is important that LGWM maintains forward visibility of technological

changes and how they can contribute towards maximising transport outcomes.

Accordingly, LGWM’s approach is to proactively harness technology in a way that enables the full potential of

investments in infrastructure and services to be achieved. In particular, LGWM’s focus is harnessing

technology change in the following areas:

Prioritising the use of the network for active modes and public transport vehicle through, for example,

dynamic management of corridors for bus priority

Encouraging increased electric vehicle uptake through, for example, the provision of more charging

stations

Encouraging use of shared vehicles and public transport through, for example, the coordinated roll out

of mobility-as-a-service

Managing networks and travel demand to ensure the transport system operates reliably through, for

example, improved on-street parking management.

It is also worth noting that several technology aspects and opportunities are best delivered outside of LGWM

(e.g. nationally led autonomous vehicle testing legislation).



10.4. Mass Transit

10.4.1. Background A mass transit system was identified as a key element of the 2008 Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Strategy. The

Strategy highlighted the need for a high quality, high frequency public transport spine through central

Wellington city between Wellington railway station and the southern and eastern suburbs. The 2014

Wellington Public Transport Spine Study (PTSS) investigated this further, focusing on the feasibility of mode

and route options to deliver a core public transport spine and achieve a step change in public transport level

of service through this corridor. In 2017 bus rapid transit (BRT) investigations considered the

recommendations of the PTSS in greater detail, focusing on the feasibility of BRT along the spine further.

The PTSS was reviewed in 2017, looking at whether earlier recommendations were still valid, given changes

that had occurred since its completion, and provided commentary about how international experience of

mass transit planning and implementation could relate to Wellington. This work informed the presentation of

mass transit in the LGWM engagement scenarios, which showed mass transit along a single CBD spine (via the

Golden Mile) and branching off to the south and east at the Basin Reserve in three of the four scenarios.

10.4.2. LGWM further work following engagement Engagement feedback suggested other route options for consideration and prompted consideration of how

mass transit should fit with the wider public transport network. Detailed network planning investigations were

completed to understand options for delivering an integrated public transport network that would best

leverage the benefits of mass transit within the LGWM study area. The key findings were:

Mass transit in Wellington should have the following characteristics

o High frequency (at least 10-minutes all-day, every day)

o Fast and reliable compared to car

o High quality infrastructure

o High capacity vehicles

o High quality electric vehicles

Two primary public transport spines are required through Wellington CBD (Golden Mile and

Quays/Waterfront) to accommodate future passenger demand while ensuring reliable journey times

and avoiding forced transfers at the CBD fringe

A number of key corridor trade-offs have been identified.

A piece of work was completed to examine the possible impacts of potential LGWM interventions on land

values in Wellington City (see Section 10.1.1). This research concluded that by improving amenity and

accessibility, mass transit projects can increase property values, potentially providing a revenue stream to help

finance investments.

A shared vision of the city’s future was developed to help inform the mass transit elements and to underpin

the LGWM programme (see Section 2.9.1). The future opportunities and issues for the city were mapped. A

number of potential ‘activation areas’ including the waterfront, Te Aro and Newtown were identified; all of

which have influenced the route alignment preference for the mass transit route.

Work was commissioned to provide advice on high level engineering feasibility and issues along the mass

transit route. This work considered different route choices and an indication of their potential impacts on land

requirements, cost, feasible gradients, parking, other transport modes, and utility service assets.

A further review was commissioned to provide expert advice on the mass transit issues and assumptions

under consideration (Review of Wellington LRT Concept – Risks and Opportunities). The review provided a



summary of the high-level risks and opportunities associated with implementing LRT in Wellington, based on

international experience of planning and delivering LRT systems. To maximise the opportunities for Wellington

it was recommended that clear objectives for LRT be determined to deal with the expected compromises

(trade-offs) and that considerations of potential urban regeneration, place-making and future patronage were

all key factors in deciding an appropriate route.

The review also highlighted some significant technical challenges for implementing LRT in the Wellington

context, particularly due to topography. Beyond the CBD/central city engineering solutions are likely to be

relatively expensive and the lower patronage potential, due to more dispersed development patterns south

and east of Newtown, make it more difficult to justify the high cost of investment. The likely spatial extent of

light rail in Wellington is limited by topography and urban form. Further detailed work was recommended

before any firm conclusions could be made on whether LRT is a viable investment solution for Wellington, and

on the most appropriate route and network form it should take.

10.4.3. Identification of a preferred mass transit route and mode for evaluation The various pieces of further work outlined above were used to inform identification of a preferred mass

transit system route for evaluation as part of the recommended programme of investment. Light rail was

assumed as it represented the highest cost option that delivered the greatest opportunities for urban

development.

The LRT component followed one of the two central city spines from Wellington railway station to Wellington

airport. The route and technology choices – LRT along the waterfront, Taranaki Street, Adelaide Road, Mt

Albert tunnel, Rongotai Road, Cobham Drive - were included in this option for the purpose of evaluation. The

other central city spine along the Golden Mile would be upgraded to service the many bus routes that would

form the rest of the public transport system for Wellington.

Consideration of the LRT corridor on the second central city spine as a preferred route included:

Maximising urban development potential

Creating an attractive public transport service with good patronage

Resilience to seismic events

Fit with the existing network and minimising conflict with other traffic movements

Avoiding challenging corners, geometry and other engineering constraints

Parking impact

Impact on retail activity

Access to key land uses such as schools

Cost and ability to deliver

Property impacts



Figure 18 Preferred route for mass transit between Wellington Railway Station and Wellington International Airport

Necessarily there is a level of uncertainty of the preferred LRT route at this PBC stage. Several key route

options and alternatives will be investigated in detail and confirmed at the next stage of the business case.

This further work will also consider options for stabling, technology choice, and stations.

10.5. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro

Preliminary investigations and community engagement highlighted the Vivian Street and Karo Drive corridors

as areas of conflict between State Highway 1 east-west movements and local north-south movements. There

was also the perception that the State Highway corridors have severance impacts on the adjoining urban areas

i.e. they act as barriers that deter movements across the corridor. This derives from the delay to north-south

movements, particularly pedestrians waiting to cross the State Highway, and from the low amenity of the



corridors. Lastly, some respondents expressed the desire to remove through-traffic from Vivian Street as a

way to reduce overall traffic on this street and in the central city.

Further investigations were undertaken to test whether a relocation of State Highway 1 traffic from Vivian

Street to Karo Drive and possible undergrounding of a two-way State Highway along Karo Drive would help

address these issues. The alternatives investigated include the following:

A contraflow system using existing tunnels

A series of short tunnels

A longer, continuous tunnel

Contraflow using existing tunnels

This alternative would involve introducing a contraflow system on the existing State Highway corridor along

the Terrace Tunnel trench, Karo Drive (at-grade) and Arras Tunnel. This would re-allocate one existing

westbound traffic lane to eastbound through-traffic that does not have a destination within Te Aro. The logic

behind this approach is that 25% to 30% of traffic on Vivian Street has a destination to the east and could

bypass Te Aro, and be accommodated by a single eastbound lane along Karo Drive. Other traffic movements

would continue to use Vivian Street similar to the current operation.

The investigations revealed significant constraints at the existing trench just south of the Terrace Tunnel which

is not wide enough to accommodate one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes, and elsewhere along the

Karo Drive alignment. Reducing the number of westbound lanes to create an eastbound lane would also be

likely to cause queuing along Karo Drive westbound and increase congestion and environmental impacts in

this area.

Making Karo Drive two-way would also require additional traffic signal phases and introduce new intersection

conflicts. This would decrease the level of service of the route in the westbound direction, as well as decrease

the level of service for walking, cycling, bus and general traffic movements in the north-south directions.

Series of short tunnels

This alternative would involve undergrounding State Highway 1 (eastbound and westbound) between the

Terrace Tunnel and Basin Reserve along the Karo Drive alignment and beside the existing Arras Tunnel). ‘Lids’

(covered tunnel sections) would be constructed over selected parts of the alignment to maintain the local

north-south streets at grade (Abel Smith, Willis, Victoria, Cuba and Taranaki streets), to create green spaces

and to improve pedestrian connectivity. Open trenches would be located in between the covered tunnel

sections. The open trenches would help to minimise the cost of the undergrounding and reduce the need for

ventilation stacks and other infrastructure required in longer tunnels, but would not create a consistent

covered area.

Longer, continuous tunnel

This alternative would be a variation on the above, involving longer lids and fewer open trenches to create a

continuous cut-and-cover tunnel from Willis St to the Basin Reserve. The space on the tunnel lid between

Willis Street and the Basin Reserve would be used to maintain the north-south streets at grade and to create a

series of open spaces in between the local streets. Ventilation stacks and control buildings would likely be

required to service this longer tunnel.



Preliminary investigations of the tunnel alternatives indicated that they would not result in the majority of

traffic being removed from Vivian Street without other complementary interventions. This is because the

majority (70% to 75%) of traffic on Vivian St is bound for local destinations, rather than passing through to

reach destinations elsewhere, and therefore is unlikely to use the eastbound Karo Drive route. However,

separating local movements from through-traffic has the potential to improve the performance of the

transport network and urban form in this part of Wellington.

The investigations also indicated that a large infrastructure-based intervention has the potential to achieve

programme outcomes, enhance amenity in Te Aro and create opportunities to divert traffic from the central

city and from along the waterfront. However, it is likely to incur high costs, reflecting the complexity of tunnel

systems and underground utilities and services. More work would be required to quantify the benefits of

these alternatives and consider detailed interdependencies with other programme elements.

10.6. Basin Reserve Area

The Basin Reserve is another area of conflict between State Highway 1 east-west movements and local north-

south movements.

The LGWM preferred approach for the Basin would respond to a number of design principles including:

Achieves transport outcomes and addresses conflicting transport movements for all modes

Is sympathetic to the local geography, character and existing street network

Enhances amenity values and the use of the Basin.

LGWM has ruled out the previous Basin Bridge proposal which was rejected by the Board of Inquiry in 2014.

Initial analysis suggests that there are other less intrusive options to separate conflicting transport movements

and improve flows at the Basin. Some of these alternatives were considered at a high level from an urban

design, transport and engineering perspective to understand key risks and feasibility. The alternatives

investigated are set out below.

At-grade improvements

This alternative would involve a series of at-grade changes including localised widening, the removal or

relocation of a limited number of on-street parking bays, the creation of additional traffic lanes, restricting the

Ellice Street exit, and giving priority for public transport at traffic signals. The changes would be designed to

have minimal land take or other impacts.

Undergrounding of State Highway 1 north of the Basin Reserve

This alternative would involve undergrounding of State Highway 1 (two-way) in a cut-and-cover tunnel

between Paterson St and Arras Tunnel, north of the Basin Reserve. North-south local movements would

continue to operate at-grade.

A cut-and-cover tunnel along the north side of the Basin Reserve would create risks around the re-routing and

pumping of the underground Waitangi Stream which runs below the Basin area, from Adelaide Road to the

Canal Reserve (the green strip between Cambridge and Kent terraces). A continuous tunnel from Patterson St

to Arras Tunnel would effectively act as a ‘dam’ against the stream flow path. This option was therefore not

considered feasible.



Undergrounding of State Highway 1 south and west of Basin Reserve

This alternative would involve undergrounding of State Highway 1 (two-way) in a cut-and-cover tunnel

between Paterson St and Arras Tunnel, under Dufferin, Rugby and Sussex streets to the south and west of the

Basin Reserve. It makes use of the elevated grounds on the western side of the Basin, which are around seven

metres higher than either Cambridge Tce or Adelaide Rd and can therefore accommodate a tunnel above the

level of a relocated Waitangi Stream. This option does however require the regrading of Paterson Street from

the entrance of the Mt Victoria Tunnel to bring the State Highway below Dufferin St. North-south local

movements would continue to operate at-grade, over the State Highway.

This alternative was not considered feasible due to the excessive steepening of Paterson Street that would be

required to connect the undergrounded State Highway to Mt Victoria Tunnel.

Extension of Sussex Street over State Highway 1

Grade-separation of State Highway 1 traffic below local traffic near the Arras Tunnel. This involves:

Extension of Sussex Street for two-way local traffic (including any public transport) to cross over a

lowered State Highway by the north-west corner of the Basin Reserve

The relocation of westbound State Highway 1 traffic to the north of the Basin Reserve

The relocation of eastbound State Highway 1 traffic from Vivian Street and Kent Terrace to the Buckle

Street alignment and the north of the Basin Reserve (assumes State Highway 1 is undergrounded in

both directions through Te Aro).

Pedestrian and cycle movements could either follow the local traffic, over State Highway 1 and along the

western side of the Basin Reserve, or cross under State Highway 1, directly connecting the Basin Reserve with

Kent and Cambridge Terraces.

The relocation of local southbound movements and westbound state highway movements creates

opportunities to traffic-calm the area around the entrances of St Mark’s Church School, Wellington College

and Government House. Access to the schools would continue to be provided on Dufferin St with an access

lane and bus turning loop.

This alternative (Figure 19) was adopted by LGWM for evaluation as part of the recommended programme of

investment. Necessarily there is a level of uncertainty of the final layout at this PBC stage. Alternative options

will be investigated in detail at the next stage of the business case. This further work will also consider

integration with the wider LGWM programme, the ability to accelerate some improvements for early delivery,

and a formal decision-making process.

Engagement with the community will be needed to explore and develop a design that achieves transport

outcomes, is sympathetic to the local geography, enhances the use of the Basin, and improves amenity around

the reserve.



Figure 19 Indicative layout for the transport system near the Basin Reserve (Artist’s impression of indicative concept below)

PART B2 – Analysis of Programme Elements: Further Analysis


11. FURTHER ANALYSIS While engaging with the Ministry of Transport, further analysis was carried out into how the State Highway 1

corridor could contribute to achieving LGWM objectives within an affordable funding envelope. This work built

on the investigations summarised in Section 10.5. A summary of some of the technical documents referenced

in this section can be found in Appendix N.

The State Highway corridor was considered in three sections (Ngauranga to Aotea Quay, Terrace Tunnel to

Basin Reserve, and Mt Victoria Tunnel to Airport). Options were considered for each section and assessed at a

high level, with logical combinations considered as connected routes within the context of the wider

programme. This initial assessment did not develop firm recommendations; the intent was to indicate

whether a reduced level of investment could still be effective in achieving programme outcomes. The

investigation assumed that other programme elements were unchanged, including mass transit, Basin grade-

separation, road pricing, walking, cycling and public transport improvements.

11.1. State Highway 1 Corridor Ngauranga to Aotea Quay

Consideration of the State Highway 1 section between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay focused on the potential

Multi-User Ferry Terminal that is being investigated outside of LGWM. In summary, none of the potential

access arrangements under consideration by the Multi-User Ferry Terminal were found to be incompatible

with the LGWM programme. Widening of State Highway 1 southbound between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay

was considered unlikely to be required as part of the LGWM programme without an identified need as part of

Multi-User Ferry Terminal planning.

11.2. State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro

As part of the RPI development several options for this section of State Highway 1 were considered including

contraflow using the existing tunnels, a series of short tunnels, and a longer continuous tunnel with varying

lengths of covered and open trenches. Further investigation considered the presence/absence of a duplicate

Terrace Tunnel, different forms of contraflow operation, relatively lower cost optimisation and enhancement

changes, reduced extent of undergrounding to a single intersection, and different methodologies for

tunnelling.

High level consideration of different tunnelling methodologies highlighted that a different tunnelling approach

such as machine excavation (rather than cut and cover or a tunnel boring machine) could be delivered at a

reduced cost, with lesser disruption, and over a similar timeframe, if found to be feasible.

This analysis highlighted the importance of robust optioneering during detailed investigation phases.

11.3. State Highway 1 corridor through Mt Victoria

The RPI assumed widening and duplication in line with previous NZ Transport Agency proposals. Different

options considered different ways of utilising additional capacity from an extra tunnel, using the Hataitai bus

tunnel, creation of an additional walking and cycling tunnel, and different tunnelling methodologies such as

widening the existing tunnel rather than excavating a new tunnel.

Widening excavation techniques had several identified potential issues including constructability challenges,

reduced resilience outcomes, and lower fire and life safety performance. However, it was identified to

potentially represent a lower cost investment.

Again, this analysis highlighted the importance of robust optioneering during detailed investigation phases.

PART B3 – Programme Development: Longlist Programme Options


PART B3 – PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT This part summarises the process that was followed to iteratively develop and assess programme options

through a longlist and shortlist assessment process to arrive at a recommended programme of

investment.

12. LONGLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS 12.1. Longlist Programme Development

The longlist of programme options was developed within the context of the strategic response, and

having regard to feedback from the engagement scenarios.

Six packages of interventions (‘elements’) were developed that could potentially be implemented in a

standalone manner and progressively combined to address aspects of the strategic approach. These

elements were then used to build up longlist of programme options for testing. The six programme

packages are set out below.

Priority for public transport and active modes in the central city Improving priority for buses on key routes to improve journey times and reliability

Improving walkability and creating more people-focused spaces in the central city

Creating a network of safe cycleways throughout the central city

Optimising operation of existing infrastructure through ‘Early Improvements’ (including lowering

speeds in the central city).

This package reflected the strong support in the engagement scenarios feedback for the types of

interventions illustrated in Scenario A, but with higher investment in public transport (excluding large

scale infrastructure investment), walking, and cycling.

Distributed bus priority / bus lanes A distributed mass transit service on three core routes in Wellington City

Design of the wider public transport network to complement mass transit

Some infrastructure changes that may be required to support mass transit or manage trade-offs

with other parts of the transport network.

Mass Transit focused on a single spine A high priority mass transit service on a single spine through Wellington City

Design of the wider public transport network to complement mass transit

Significant infrastructure changes that may be required to support mass transit or manage trade-

offs with other parts of the transport network. This could include:

o Grade separation near the Basin Reserve or on the Taranaki Street corridor

o New tunnels including potentially a duplicated Mt Victoria Tunnel or a new tunnel

through Mt Cook and/or Mt Albert

The package could enable active mode connections as part of any new tunnels.

Infrastructure to reduce conflict and increase amenity in Te Aro Relocation of the State Highway 1 corridor through Te Aro, potentially into an underground

structure, enabling pedestrian and amenity improvements throughout Te Aro.



Wider network capacity

Depending on the net impacts of other improvements, pricing, and the realisation of any number

of future uncertainties, one approach may be to increase the capacity of the wider road

network.

This could include:

o Reducing congestion at the Basin

o Duplicating the Mt Victoria Tunnel and widening Ruahine Street

o Duplicating the Terrace Tunnel

o Increasing capacity of the Inner City Bypass

Enabling walking and cycling improvements along the waterfront quays, Vivian Street, and in the

Lambton and Thorndon areas.

Pricing to manage demand Each programme option would be assessed with or without congestion pricing that would be

aimed at managing demand to optimise network performance, such as changes to parking

charges and a cordon charge.

Programme elements common to all longlist options A number of other areas for improvement have been identified which would feature to some

degree in any preferred programme. These include:

Improved access to the port, once a port programme has been defined

Improved accessibility to/from north of the LGWM area

Improved network operations

Improved resilience of the transport network

Increased focus on use of travel demand management measures to encourage more effective

use of the transport network

Accounting for future uncertainty Technological change is expected to occur, but the form and timeframe is unknown and largely

unpredictable. Any programme will need to adapt to these changes in the medium to long term. In the

short term, technological change is not considered a differentiator for selecting a preferred programme.



12.2. Longlist Programme Options

A longlist of 13 programme options was developed using the intervention elements outlined in Section

12.1, as shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12 Longlist Programme Options

Programme Element Longlist Programme Options

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Priority for PT and active modes

in the central city X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Distributed bus priority / bus

lanes X X

Mass Transit focused on a single

spine X X X X X X X X

Infrastructure to reduce conflict

and increase amenity in Te Aro X X X X X X

Wider network capacity X X X X* X*

Pricing to manage demand X X X X X X

*Mt Victoria Tunnel Duplication, Improvements near the Basin Reserve, and Ruahine St Widening only

The longlist of programmes was refined over time. The versions shown above were as assessed during

the longlist workshop (see below).

12.3. Longlist Programme Assessment

A workshop was held with attendees from the LGWM team, chaired by an independent facilitator. This

workshop confirmed the longlist of programme options subject to adding additional options, and

qualitatively assessed the longlist options against the SMART Objective KPIs. This assessment used a

qualitative 7-point scale as outlined below:

7-Point Scale

+3 Major Benefit

+2 Moderate Benefit

+1 Minor Benefit

0 Neutral

-1 Minor Disbenefit

-2 Moderate Disbenefit

-3 Major Disbenefit



Workshop attendees broke into specialised groups, each with assigned KPIs, to assess the programme

options using the preliminary scoring as a starting point, and report back on key considerations and

differentiators. Results of this assessment process are shown in Table 13. Workshop participants were

also invited to comment on any other significant aspects that might impact decision making at a high

level, including Key Risks, Urgency, Interdependencies, and Economic and Social impacts. Documentation

of this assessment process is shown in Appendix H.

Investment Objective KPI

Longlist Programme Options

Do-Min

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Amenity Index 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 0 1.5 2

CO2 and particulate emissions

0 0 1 1 2 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 1 2 -1 1 2

Ratio people: vehicles entering CBD

0 1 1.5 2 3 2 3 2 3 1.5 2.5 -2 1.5 2.5

Number of pedestrians and cyclists

0 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 3

Pedestrian and public transport travel times

0 1.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 3 1 2.5 3

Cycling infrastructure level of service

0 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3

Network catchment walking & public transport

0 1 2 2 3 2.5 3 2.5 3 3 3 0 2.5 3

Travel time reliability all modes

0 0.5 2 1 3 2 3 2.5 3 2.5 3 1.5 2.5 3

Improved safety all modes 0 1 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3 3 1 2 2.5

Improved resilience 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2.5 2 2 2 1 1

Urban Development Potential

0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 1 2 2.5

Table 13 Longlist Programme Option Assessment

PART B3 – Programme Development: Shortlist Programme Options


13. SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS 13.1. Shortlist Programme Development and Options

As a result of the assessment described in Section 12.3, a short list of programme options was

developed. The workshop participants modified some of the longlist programmes in order to optimise

their performance, based on the learnings from the assessment process. This resulted in the shortlist

programmes as set out below. A more detailed presentation of the shortlist options is shown in

Appendix I.

Candidates for shortlist and their variants are shown in Table 14, and can be summarised as:

Programme 3 includes a dispersed investment in bus based public transport across the

network

Programme 5 includes a focused investment in a high-quality mass transit route supported by

a bus network with lesser priority

Programme 12 includes a step-change in public transport similar to either programme 3 or 5,

improved accessibility to the east and south, and reduced severance and conflict in Te Aro

Programme 9 includes a step-change in public transport similar to either programme 3 or 5,

improved accessibility to the north, east and south, and reduced severance and conflict in Te

Aro.

Table 14 Shortlist Programme Options

Interventions Shortlist Programmes

3 5 12 9

Two dedicated public transport spine routes10 through the CBD

- Golden Mile and Waterfront - with high levels of priority and

segregation

BRT11 on both CBD public transport spines and on key public

transport routes to the north, east, south and west, to support

high quality, high frequency, high capacity bus services

* * High level of public transport priority and service along one of

the public transport spines from Wellington Station to the

Airport via Newtown / Kilbirnie with a lesser level of priority on

a supporting BRT network using the secondary public transport

spine in the CBD

Improvements to pedestrian access and amenity to and

through the central city, and easy access to public transport

services

10

Section 10.4.2 summarises the analysis that suggested two public transport spines 11

At this stage of programme development the term ‘BRT’ was used to refer to bus services with a high level of priority.



Creating safe cycleways throughout the central city connecting

to the wider cycle network towards the north, south, east and

west

Walking/cycling tunnel parallel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel

Duplication of Mt Victoria Tunnel for motorised vehicles,

people walking and people on bikes

Grade separation of the Basin Reserve **

Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian

Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with

a single eastbound lane

Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian

Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with

two eastbound lanes

Amenity and cycling improvements on Vivian Street

Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of State

Highway 1 on and off-ramps, and an additional southbound

lane on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay

Consider road pricing mechanism(s) to manage private vehicle

demand and promote alternative modes

Early Improvements – Suite of geographically packaged

improvements that can be implemented in the short term

*Programmes 12 and 9 included a step change in public transport (Similar to programme 3 or 5) **If mass transit route uses Kent/Cambridge Terraces instead of Taranaki Street

All short list programmes also included:

Improving priority for buses on key routes, improving walkability and creating more people-

focused spaces in the central city, and creating a network of safe cycleways throughout the

central city

Early Improvements - optimising operation of existing infrastructure, including lowering

speeds in the central city

Improving access to the port, once a port programme has been defined

Improving accessibility to/from the northern suburbs and the wider region in the northern

part of the LGWM programme area

Improving network operations

Improving resilience of the transport network

More use of travel demand management measures to encourage more effective use of the

transport network.



The following figure shows how the short list programmes might look if implemented.

Figure 20 Shortlist programme option maps

Programme 12 Programme 9

Programme 5

Suite of 17 early improvements packages including speed limit reviews

Legend

Walking

Cycling

Public Transport

Road

Clearways on Vivian Street, optimise Karo/Vivian corridors

At-grade improvements to Basin Reserve

Create Distributed Bus Mass Transit Network

Programme 3



13.2. Shortlist Programme Assessment

The shortlist options were qualitatively assessed against the SMART Objective KPIs at a workshop with

attendees from the LGWM team. This assessment used a qualitative 7 point scale as below:

7-Point Scale

+3 Major Benefit

+2 Moderate Benefit

+1 Minor Benefit

0 Neutral

-1 Minor Disbenefit

-2 Moderate Disbenefit

-3 Major Disbenefit

Workshop attendees broke into specialised groups each with assigned KPIs to assess programme

options using the preliminary scoring as a starting point, and report back on key considerations and

differentiators. The results of this assessment process are shown in Table 15 (note that the KPIs used

at this workshop refined versions of those used at the longlist assessment stage). Workshop

participants were also invited to comment on any other significant aspects that might impact decision

making, including Key Risks, Urgency, Interdependencies, and Economic and Social impacts.

Documentation of this assessment process is shown in Appendix I.

Table 15 Shortlist Programme Assessment against KPIs

Table 15 also shows an indicative capital cost range for the programmes in 2018 dollars. It should be

noted that these cost estimates are indicative only and reflect the uncertainty around how each

intervention might look when actually implemented.

PART B3 – Programme Development: Recommended Programme


14. RECOMMENDED PROGRAMME Following the assessment of the short list, Programme 5 was assessed by workshop attendees to be superior

to the other options because it performed well against both the KPIs and strategic objectives at a lesser cost

than Programme 9 and 12. Subsequent to this assessment LGWM decided that Programme 9 should be

chosen as the recommended programme as it performed better than Programme 5 against the amenity index,

network catchment, travel time variability, resilience and potential for urban development KPIs.

Following this decision, a Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI) was developed as a variant of

Programme 9. The key components of the RPI are summarised in Section 14.2 and described in more detail in

Section 14.3.

The RPI is an integrated, whole-of-system programme that includes a comprehensive range of investments

across the full range of transport modes. Given the scale of the RPI, it is expected to take at least 15 years to

fully implement, depending on funding availability.

14.1. Recommended Programme Development

Table 16 shows how the RPI was developed from the components of the shortlist programmes, as a variant of

programme 9.

Table 16 Recommended Programme of Investment (RPI) description

Interventions RPI

Shortlist Programmes (repeated for comparison)

3 5 12 9

Two dedicated public transport spine routes through the CBD - Golden Mile and Waterfront - with high levels of priority and segregation

Dispersed bus priority

Mass transit supported by dispersed bus priority

Improvements to pedestrian access and amenity to and through the central city, and easy access to public transport services

Creating safe cycleways throughout the central city connecting to the wider cycle network towards the north, south, east and west

Walking/cycling tunnel parallel to the Mt Victoria Tunnel

Duplication of Mt Victoria Tunnel for motorised vehicles, people walking and people on bikes

Grade separation of the Basin Reserve

Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with a single eastbound lane



Moving the State Highway 1 eastbound alignment from Vivian Street to a cut-and-cover two-way tunnel along Karo Drive with two eastbound lanes

Amenity improvements on Vivian Street

Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, reconfiguration of State Highway 1 on and off-ramps, and an additional southbound lane on State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay

Road pricing mechanism(s) to manage private vehicle demand and promote alternative modes

Carefully planned transport system transformation

Urban development

14.2. Recommended Programme of Investment Summary

High-quality walking and cycling so our streets are safer and better places for people

A walkable city - Better walking priority and facilities

Connected cycleways - Creating a connected and safe cycling network

Better public transport with high-capacity mass transit so people have more travel choices, and buses and

trains are more reliable and attractive

Public transport to the north - Better connections to the north

Public transport to/through the city - High priority access to and through Wellington including a dual

spine

Mass Transit from Station to Airport supporting urban regeneration and a step change in service

quality

Urban development land use changes integrated with transport, so people have better travel options where

they live and work

Urban development - Create accessible neighbourhoods

Smarter transport network with road pricing so people and goods make better use of our transport system

without more cars

Smarter transport system - Technology, integrated operations, and demand management (excluding

pricing)

Smarter pricing - Changing travel behaviour by charging more to drive into the city at peak times

Multimodal State Highway improvements to relocate cars out of the central city and enable better public

transport, walking and cycling, and so people can get to key destinations, such as the hospital and airport,

more reliably

Improving the Basin - Reducing conflict between movements and modes

Better access to the East - Extra Mt Victoria tunnel and Ruahine Street widening

Reclaiming Te Aro - Shifting State Highway 1 off Vivian St into a tunnel unlocking development

potential

More reliable access from the North - Ngauranga to Aotea Quay widening and Second Terrace Tunnel



14.3. Recommended Programme Detail

The following sections set out the components of the RPI in more detail.

14.3.1. A Walkable City Pedestrian accessibility improvements – including widened footpaths, improved crossings and priority,

shelter, signage and lighting across the central city

Setting safer speeds for vehicles in the central city and on State Highway 1 east of Mount Victoria

Safe crossing of State Highway 1 on Cobham Drive

Larger scale pedestrian improvements, to support a high quality public realm on key pedestrian routes

within the central city.

Rationale Walking is the most efficient mode of travel for short distances, contributing to the economic vitality of central

city streets and delivering environmental and health benefits. Continued population growth in Te Aro and

other areas within walking distance of the Wellington CBD needs to be supported by better pedestrian

facilities and priority.

Walking is also the end-of-journey mode for most people travelling by public transport and private vehicle

from the wider region to the CBD for work, shopping and leisure. LGWM seeks to ensure the central city

continues to be safe and attractive for people through the provision of better public spaces.

RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of measures to improve walkability and create more people-focused spaces in the

central city:

Early improvements to pedestrian safety, amenity and accessibility in the central city

These include works such a widening footpaths in areas of high demand and poor provision; adding

crossing facilities where they are missing; reducing the waiting times and/or increasing the ‘green’ time for

pedestrians at key crossings; installing pedestrian countdown displays at selected signalised intersections;

providing shelters where building verandas are missing; improving signage, especially to key tourist

destinations; and improving lighting along off-street walkways to improve personal safety.

Safer speeds

As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes a review of the speed limits on central city streets and

on the State Highway east of Mount Victoria tunnel. Lower traffic speeds help to reduce the risk of injuries

to pedestrians and makes this mode of transport more attractive to a wide range of people.

In conjunction with the review of speed limits on the State Highway east of Mount Victoria, the RPI

includes a formal crossing facility for pedestrians and cyclists across Cobham Drive. This is expected to help

address the safety concerns in this part of the network and improve accessibility to the ASB Sports Centre

and community facilities in Kilbirnie.

Public space improvements

Changes to the street network, such as the introduction of dedicated lanes for public transport and the

introduction of mass transit, open up opportunities to re-think the design of key streets and public spaces.

The RPI includes improvements to the pedestrian environment (e.g. paving, seating and planting) as part of

these wider works.

Other parts of the pedestrian network can be improved independently of improvements to the wider

transport network. Examples of such works include improvements to Dixon Street to support regeneration



in this area. Other areas which could be refreshed to improve pedestrian amenity include Cuba Street,

Stout Street, Allen and Blair Streets, Mercer Street and The Terrace.

These works would help improve the amenity of areas with high levels of pedestrian movements and

street-level businesses.

14.3.2. Connected Cycleways Implement cycleways as part of corridor improvements on Featherston Street, Thorndon Quay,

Courtenay Place/Dixon Street, Taranaki Street, Willis Street, Victoria Street

Setting safer speeds for vehicles in the central city and on State Highway 1

Implement cycleways as part of public transport focused corridor improvements on Kent and

Cambridge Terraces, and Adelaide Road.

Rationale Cycling has become more popular as a mode of transport in the Wellington region. This has been helped by

the advent of electric bikes which ease the challenges of Wellington’s hilly topography. There are however

many people who would like to cycle but do not feel safe cycling on the current road network. To give

everyone the option to cycle if they wish to, a network of safe and connected cycle routes is needed.

Cycling has the potential to replace a number of vehicle journeys, thus helping to relieve congestion. It also

delivers environmental and health benefits.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes a range of measures to improve provisions for cycling, with a focus in the central city:

Safer speeds

As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes review of the speed limits on central city streets and on

the State Highway east of Mount Victoria tunnel. Lower traffic speeds help to reduce the risk of injuries to

cyclists and makes this mode of transport more attractive to a wide range of people.

Early improvements creating a network of safe cycleways

The RPI includes cycleways on a number of central city streets such as Thorndon Quay, Taranaki,

Featherston, Victoria, Willis and Dixon Streets, Kent and Cambridge Terraces, and Courtenay Place. The

design of these facilities will be developed with the affected communities in the next phase of the

programme.

Connection to the east

A high quality cycleway, between the Basin Reserve and Evans Bay Parade, including a new Mount Victoria

tunnel. This will provide the eastern suburbs with a more pleasant, attractive and safe way of reaching the

CBD while reducing conflicts with pedestrians.

Connection to the south

In conjunction with the investment in high quality public transport along Adelaide Road, LGWM anticipates

provision of a high quality cycling facility between John Street and the Basin Reserve. This will support the

growth of safer cycle travel between the southern suburbs and the central city.

Vivian Street improvements

Changes to the central city bypass route could create opportunities to re-think the design and role of Vivian

Street. If so, creating a new east-west cycling connection across Te Aro as part of these wider changes will

be an option.



14.3.3. Better Public Transport Connections to the North Increased bus priority on Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay

Increased rail network capacity and service frequencies (to be progressed outside LGWM)

Higher frequencies and service levels for bus routes to northern suburbs

Integrated ticketing (to be progressed outside LGWM).

Rationale Current and projected growth in demand for travel to the central city is greatest from the north. The public

transport network (rail lines and bus routes) that serve these existing and new journeys to and from the north

will require increases in capacity to improve service quality and reliability. Without investment in these

networks, public transport could become less attractive, reducing the number of viable travel choices for

people to access central Wellington and its regional destinations. This has the potential to impact Wellington’s

economic performance and competitiveness, as well as affecting the ability to support social opportunities.

The transport networks towards the north of the central city are at capacity during peak times for both road

and rail-based modes. This means that even small disruption events have wide reaching effects across multiple

modes with regional consequences. Increased public transport capacity to the north can therefore significantly

improve the resilience of Wellington’s transport network.

RPI proposals The RPI includes a range of measures to improve public transport capacity and priority to the north of the

central city:

Early improvements to bus priority

As part of early improvements, trialling bus priority enhancements on Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road have

the potential to reduce delays from conflicts with general traffic on this corridor. This will need to be

designed to integrate with the trial of cycling facilities and improved pedestrian crossing opportunities.

Bus priorities on Thorndon Quay, Hutt Road, and other main routes to northern suburbs

Following the early improvements trial, a more permanent configuration for Hutt Road and Thorndon Quay

and service improvements will respond to changes in transport system demands that will result from other

programme elements.

Increased rail network capacity and service frequencies (progressed outside LGWM)

Work to provide increased capacity and service frequencies on the Hutt Valley/Wairarapa, Kapiti Coast, and

Johnsonville rail lines that connect Wellington City to the wider region is currently being progressed by

Greater Wellington Regional Council. These infrastructure changes include double tracking, turn back

facilities, additional crossovers and connections at Wellington Station, overhead power supply upgrades,

freight loops and signalling changes. Together with changes to services and timetabling, this will help to

create a more reliable ‘turn up and go’ public transport service across the busiest parts of the network.

Integrated ticketing (progressed outside LGWM)

Greater Wellington Regional Council and the Transport Agency are involved in a national rollout of an

advanced integrated ticketing system across all public transport networks. This has the potential to make

the overall network more attractive and seamless, by speeding up boarding and making transfers between

different public transport modes and services easier.

14.3.4. Better Public Transport Priority To and Through the Central City Bus priority enhancements on Kent/Cambridge Terraces, Adelaide Road, Taranaki Street, Kilbirnie

Crescent, Bowen Street, Hamilton Road, Victoria Street, Willis Street, and along the Golden Mile



Trial removal of general traffic from sections of Willis Street, Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place

Providing high quality and high frequency bus services along higher priority core public transport

corridors into and out of the city.

Rationale To cater for growth, the transport system needs to move more people with fewer vehicles coming into the

central city. The main way to achieve this for longer distance journeys will be through increased numbers of

people travelling by public transport. This step change in public transport will require a significant increase in

public transport capacity. To ensure that public transport provides an attractive travel choice, services will

need to be more reliable and this will require increased priority on congested parts of the network,

particularly in the central city.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes a range of public transport priority measures in and around the central city:

Early improvements by enhancing bus priority

As part of early improvements, bus priority enhancements along the Golden Mile could support the

improvements already introduced as part of the new Wellington City bus network. Other corridors where

bus priority enhancements have been identified to help reduce the delays that buses experience include

Kent and Cambridge Terraces, Adelaide Road, Taranaki Street, Kilbirnie Crescent, Bowen Street, Hamilton

Road, Willis Street, and Victoria Street. These priority enhancements encompass a range of interventions

including signal timing and detection changes, increased lengths and hours of operation of bus lanes, and

rationalisation of bus stops.

In addition, there are approximately 9 bus stops on the core routes of the new bus network that do not

meet minimum design standards for length, meaning that buses cannot stop adjacent to the kerb.

Improving these stops could address issues related to traffic flows, potential safety issues, and providing an

effective service for mobility impaired users.

In order to improve the flow of buses it is proposed to trial further restrictions on general traffic in sections

of Willis Street, Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place. This measure could also improve conditions for

pedestrians and cyclists.

A dual public transport spine through the central city

The new Wellington City bus network is intended to improve bus reliability along the Golden Mile by

rationalising services and utilising higher capacity vehicles. As bus frequencies increase to accommodate

growing demand, travel time reliability will deteriorate due to capacity constraints on the Golden Mile.

Therefore, a second public transport spine through the central city is recommended to increase public

transport capacity to support growth, and to further improve service reliability. The proposed route for this

second spine is along the waterfront quays and Taranaki Street. A dual spine will enable mass transit to be

introduced on the waterfront route (as discussed in Section 14.3.5).

Providing high quality and high frequency bus services

To maintain reliable services, the core bus routes outside of the Golden Mile will also require additional bus

priority as ridership grows and service frequency increases. In addition, the creation of a mass transit route

will require the wider bus network to be reconfigured to provide effective connections between the central

city and other parts of Wellington.



The core corridors currently being considered for improvements to provide high priority connections

include Hutt Road, Thorndon Quay, Glenmore Street, Bowen Street, Chaytor Street, Brooklyn Road, Willis

Street, Victoria Street, Courtenay Place, Elizabeth Street, Brougham Street, Pirie Street, Waitoa Road,

Moxham Avenue, Kilbirnie Crescent, Rongotai Road, Adelaide Road, Riddiford Street, and Constable Street.

14.3.5. Mass Transit Supporting Urban Regeneration

Provide high-capacity, high-quality, high-frequency public transport (using either light rail (LRT) or a

technology with similar characteristics) from Wellington Railway Station along the waterfront quays,

Taranaki Street, and Adelaide Road to the Hospital, Newtown and Airport as part of the wider public

transport network.

Rationale

Mass transit enables high passenger volumes to be carried down defined corridors in an efficient and practical

way. In the Wellington context, this will improve both access to destinations in the CBD and journeys for

longer regional trips. To achieve this will require the mass transit services to be well integrated with the heavy

rail and bus networks, including the provision of quality interchanges.

Mass transit also has the potential to encourage more intensive land use development along its route. The

degree to which this is achieved depends on a variety of factors such as land use zoning and other policies,

commercial and residential demand in the locations concerned, and the perceived permanence and quality of

the mass transit route, the service provided, and the stations.

To support the goal of having a vibrant, prosperous and compact city, the LGWM programme aims to

encourage urban intensification, including both residential and workplace growth, within easy reach of the

central city. Intensification along mass transit routes is desirable from a transport perspective because it

allows growth in travel demand to be accommodated by public transport rather than driving, reducing

congestion and emissions. The corridor to the south of the CBD, from Te Aro to Newtown, has been identified

as having the greatest potential for this growth, with less but still notable potential through Kilbirnie and in

Miramar. A mass transit route has the potential to support intensification and development along this

corridor, reducing the need to travel long distances.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes a mass transit route for Wellington, providing:

A high-quality, high-frequency mass transit route from Wellington Railway Station to the Hospital, Newtown

and Airport as part of the wider public transport network

A central focus of the RPI is investment in mass transit, to improve public transport mode share and

encourage urban development in the growth areas to the south of the central city.

As summarised in Section 10.4, LGWM has a preference for a mass transit system with the characteristics

of light rail. It will include high frequency services (every 10 mins or less), modern high capacity (e.g.

articulated) electric vehicles with superior ride quality, fast loading and unloading, dedicated lanes with

signal priority, and high quality stations with level boarding.

This will enable a high quality public transport corridor, from Wellington Railway Station along the

waterfront quays, Taranaki Street, and Adelaide Road to Newtown, and extending to Kilbirnie, Miramar and

the Airport via a new Mount Albert tunnel.

Supporting changes to land use and policy settings will be needed to enable urban development and

support mass transit investment (as discussed further in Section 10.1).



14.3.6. Urban Development Land Use Changes Integrated with Transport

Enable intensification along mass transit corridors through District Plan changes and new regulatory

tools

Possible market interventions such as amalgamation of parcels through an urban development agency

in Te Aro, Adelaide Road, and parts of Newtown, Kilbirnie and Miramar.

Rationale

The CBD, Te Aro, Adelaide Road and Newtown are expected to be amongst the fastest growing

neighbourhoods in the city and region over the next 30 years. Residential intensification in these areas is

desirable because it places residents near their place of employment, education, shopping and leisure. This

reduces the need to travel and makes walking, cycling and public transport viable alternatives to travel by car.

Such intensification is already happening, albeit at a relatively slow pace. Many factors hinder the rate of

development including regulatory restrictions, fragmented land ownership and the lack of certainty for

developers and lenders. Mass transit investment can act as a catalyst for increased intensification, but it

requires a supportive land use planning and regulatory environment. At the same time, more intensive

development along the mass transit corridor is desirable to ensure the city receives the most benefit from the

mass transit investment. In the absence of such land use changes in the growth corridor(s), it is unlikely that

high levels of investment in transport infrastructure would be justified.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes the following interventions to facilitate urban development integrated with transport

investment:

District Plan changes to enable intensification along mass transit corridors

A full review of the Wellington City District Plan is expected to start shortly. LGWM recommends that the

Wellington City Council continues to integrate future land use with the future location of mass transit

routes when considering the settings that guide residential and employment intensity. For examples, this

could mean relaxing the maximum building height and site coverage to enable greater housing density and

urban development to be built within walking distance of mass transit stops.

Additional regulatory tools

In order to speed up private investment (and enabling development along mass transit routes), we

recommend that Wellington City Council continues to work with central government on new or extended

regulatory tools. For example, Special Housing Areas or similar precinct masterplan frameworks that have

been helpful in providing investment confidence and greater certainty in the regulatory process.

Possible market interventions

When development is unlikely to be delivered by the private market, central government and the City

Council may need to intervene directly, for example to amalgamate small parcels that are in separate

ownerships and not economical to redevelop individually. This could be facilitated by an urban

development agency/authority, where such entities have been helpful internationally in urban

regeneration and development, especially when leveraging off infrastructure investment.

Value capture mechanisms

Investment in transport and amenity improvements by central and local government is likely to lead to

benefits such as increases in value for those properties located nearby. It may be possible to capture some



of this windfall uplift in land values to fund part of the RPI. We recommend that the City Council works with

central government to develop mechanisms enabling appropriate value capture.

Safer speeds

As part of the early improvements, the RPI includes a review of the speed limits on central city streets.

Lower traffic speeds have the potential to support improved amenity and urban realm, encouraging more

place-based function of the road corridor such as retail and leisure activity.

14.3.7. Smarter Transport System

Applying the Mobility as a Service platform to the Wellington context

Optimisation and minor safety and operational improvements including the Golden Mile, Cobham

Drive, the Terrace, Tinakori Road, and the waterfront quays

Enhancement of existing travel demand management programmes

Transition to an integrated transport network operating system

Design of transport system transformation - travel demand management measures and temporary

infrastructure and services to manage disruption and ensure a smooth transition to the future

transport system e.g. park and ride facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, public transport subsidies,

road network changes and travel behaviour change.

Rationale

Technological advances, in particular the increased use of smartphones and other technologies, is already

enhancing the ability of transport users to make more efficient use of the transport system. This trend is likely

to continue and accelerate over the next few years.

These developments will provide the opportunity to maximise the return on investment in the transport

system by making better use of existing and future network assets. They also make the overall system more

flexible and adaptable in responding to unforeseen changes.

In conjunction with these technological advances, enhanced integrated management of the transport system

will make the system more user friendly (for example, in providing up to date travel information and advice),

and more resilient in dealing with disruption such as weather events.

Use of smart technology will be particularly important in managing the implementation of the RPI, for example

in directing traffic away from areas of construction disruption.

Letting technology enabled transport disruption happen without strategic oversight and direction poses a risk.

For example, the increasing permeation of ride-hailing in many cities has led to a decrease in public transport

patronage and increased vehicle kilometres travelled.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes the following improvements:

Early improvements towards a smarter transport network

These early improvements include applying the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform that is being

nationally developed to the Wellington context. For example, tailoring MaaS to use the existing smart

parking system. The early improvements also include optimisation and minor safety and operations

improvements on the Golden Mile, Cobham Drive, the Terrace, Tinakori Road, and the waterfront quays.

The RPI also includes increased resource allocation for travel demand management programmes such as

school travel planning and e-bike uptake encouragement.



Transition to an integrated transport network operating system

The current transport system includes a number of networks that are largely operated independently such

as the local street network and the rail network. There is an opportunity to better integrate these

operations in order for the transport system to work towards shared outcomes. What this might look like in

reality is currently being considered nationally, and Wellington would particularly benefit from such an

operational approach given that the different transport networks already have complex overlaps (e.g.

diverting traffic around a rail level crossing in real time). The integration of new transport components

from the RPI into such an operating system, such as the mass transit service, would also help to deliver

optimised returns on investment.

Design of transport system transformation

All projects should include appropriate measures to minimise disruption during construction and to

manage a smooth transition for people using the transport system on a day to day basis. For the LGWM

RPI, designing and managing the transition is significant enough to be recognised as a key component of

the programme itself. This is because central Wellington’s transport system:

Is complex and its elements are highly interdependent

Operates close to, at or over capacity at peak times

Is likely to undergo a series of major changes simultaneously (e.g. mass transit construction,

Golden Mile changes, Te Aro changes, and shared streets).

Design of transport system transformation will include a suite of travel demand management measures

and temporary infrastructure and services to create a smooth transition to the future transport system e.g.

park and ride facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, public transport subsidies, road network changes, and

travel behaviour change.

Design of transport system transformation is highly interdependent with the wider programme as some

elements of the RPI may need to be brought forward or sequenced to manage the system change. For this

reason the design of transport system transformation needs investigation in parallel with the development

of other programme components.

14.3.8. Smarter Pricing

A suite of travel demand management measures including greater use of pricing mechanisms, such as

changes to parking charges and the introduction of congestion charging.

Rationale

Pricing mechanisms are already used in managing transport demand for the use of Wellington’s transport

system, particularly at busy times. These mechanisms include on-street parking charges and subsidised public

transport fares.

Demand management has a key role to play in ensuring the RPI achieves optimal results in performing against

the investment objectives. For example, congestion charging would help to reduce congestion to efficient

levels on strategic road corridors to, from and through the central city. It would also be used to encourage use

of more space-efficient modes and reduce the impact of traffic flows on sensitive areas in the city, such as the

waterfront.



RPI proposals

The RPI includes:

Travel demand management and pricing

As part of the suite of travel demand management measures there is an opportunity to better manage

demand through pricing mechanisms. The RPI includes congestion pricing. This will include one or a

number of tools that charge motorists to drive into the central city, such as a central city cordon charge or

parking levies.

There are several ways in which pricing mechanisms could operate. It could vary temporally, have multiple

staggered cordons, or have exemptions for certain user groups. As such, there is a need to further

investigate pricing to inform any legislative change. The RPI has assumed a cordon charge for entering the

central city in the order of $5 to $10 that is focused on busy times. This modelling has indicated that pricing

will significantly contribute towards achieving the objectives of LGWM.

Pricing has the potential to result in social equity issues, particularly when travel choice is limited. The

provision of improved public transport alternatives, as proposed in the RPI, is therefore an important pre-

requisite to the introduction of any new pricing schemes.

To support the introduction of increased use of pricing mechanisms, other demand management tools that

will be considered include providing high occupancy vehicles lanes, or increased priority for non-car modes.

14.3.9. More Reliable Access from the North

Optimisation and minor safety improvements on State Highway 1

Southbound widening of State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay (potentially for buses,

high occupancy vehicles and/or freight vehicles)

Duplication of the Terrace Tunnel, enabling two southbound lanes and provision of shoulder areas within

the tunnels, and potentially including a cycling connection between The Terrace and Willis Street.

Rationale

The State Highway network provides access for people and goods to the central city, as well as other key

destinations such as the port, hospital, and airport. Access to these destinations is complex and would

substantially change as key elements of the RPI are implemented. For example, the waterfront quays route

will not be able to cater for current volumes of general traffic once the dual public transport spine is in place.

It will be difficult to accommodate these major road capacity reductions – even with congestion charging –

without impacting negatively on travel time reliability for peak time journeys to the key regional destinations.

This will be particularly so during transition to the new system as key RPI elements are constructed.

The network operates at capacity in some locations during peak times, resulting in unreliable journey times

and use of less suitable local streets for longer distance movement. Growth will exacerbate these issues.

Creating an improved bypass route (in conjunction with improved walking, cycling and public transport

options) will enable use of stronger demand management measures to reduce the number of vehicles using

less suitable local streets.

Improving the resilience of the land transport system through the central city has the potential to speed up

reconnection of key recovery centres including the airport, hospital, and port, and the wider region following a

large natural hazard event. Sections of State Highway 1 would play a key role in this as some local roads have

the potential to be disrupted due to the risk of adjacent buildings collapsing.



RPI proposals

The RPI includes the following improvements:

Early improvements on State Highway 1

This includes a selection of optimisation and minor safety improvements to State Highway 1, particularly

focused on areas of interface with local streets or sensitive adjacent land uses. Areas for consideration

include near the Aotea Quay off-ramp, the Terrace Tunnel approaches, Karo Drive, Wellington Road,

Cobham Drive, and Tinakori Road and the Terrace off-ramps.

Southbound widening of State Highway 1 between Ngauranga and Aotea Quay

Widening of State Highway 1 southbound through the addition of a fourth lane between the Ngauranga

Interchange merge and the Aotea Quay off-ramp could be tailored to deliver a variety of benefits. It could

be allocated to high-occupancy vehicles and/or buses to support a direction of moving more people with

fewer vehicles. It could be allocated to freight only movements to improve access to the port and any new

multi-user ferry terminal. As such, further investigation of this item would need to consider the

interdependencies outside of LGWM as well as the strategic approach and objectives of LGWM.

Duplication/widening of the Terrace Tunnel

Duplicating the Terrace Tunnel has the potential to support increased capacity of the State Highway 1

corridor, which can work as part of the wider programme to achieve a variety of outcomes, including

shifting through-traffic away from central city streets and maintaining reliable access to key regional

destinations. A second tunnel will create the potential to have shoulder widths within the tunnels, reducing

the effects of breakdowns and other minor disruptions, as well as the potential to create a cycling

connection between Willis Street and The Terrace.

14.3.10. Reclaiming Te Aro

Short-term improvements including restricted parking on Vivian Street and optimisation of Vivian Street

and Karo Drive

Undergrounding of the State Highway at Karo Drive to create a transformational green space, urban

development opportunities and removing through traffic from Vivian Street.

Rationale

Vivian Street is an unusual State Highway in that it connects to and looks much like the rest of the local street

network. It is used and crossed by high numbers of private vehicles, buses, people walking, and people on

bikes. The priority given to its east-west flow over north-south flows at traffic signals can lead to conflicts. This

is particularly noticeable during peak periods where the number of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport

passengers and local vehicles crossing the State Highway corridor can significantly exceed those travelling

along it, leading to delays to many users. These conflicts are duplicated along Karo Drive, the westbound

counterpart to Vivian Street.

The State Highway provides regional access to the airport and the hospital, and is a key route for vehicles by-

passing the CBD. Maintaining reliable traffic flows along the State Highway network is therefore important.

Reducing conflicts between local and regional traffic, and generally lowering the level of vehicular traffic on

central city streets has the potential to increase the attractiveness of Te Aro and stimulate regeneration in and

around the central city.



RPI proposals

The RPI includes the following interventions to improve Te Aro:

Early improvements to optimise Vivian Street and Karo Drive

This includes restricting parking along Vivian Street and changes to traffic signals and lane allocation along

Karo Drive to ease movements both on the State Highway and on local north-south streets.

Reconfiguration of State Highway 1 through Te Aro

This investment would enable eastbound State Highway through traffic to be removed from Vivian Street

and relocated to a tunnel running alongside Karo Drive. Karo Drive itself would also be undergrounded and

the surface over both tunnels used for local movements and to create a series of new open spaces. This

would help separate through traffic from the local road network, reducing conflicts.

Access and egress between the local network and State Highway 1 requires more work to get the best

balance of benefits between attracting traffic away from the central city streets, improving amenity along

Vivian St and Karo Drive, facilitating access to regional destinations and enabling mass transit along

Taranaki Street. The one-way use of Vivian will need to be reviewed as part of the wider network redesign.

These changes would improve the amenity in Te Aro and attract further urban development in the area.

They would also facilitate local north-south movements, separated from east-west State Highway

movements.

14.3.11. Improving the Basin

A short-term package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all modes

Basin Reserve grade separation between north-south movements and east-west movements with a short

bridge extension to Sussex Street (over State Highway 1).

Rationale

The Basin Reserve area is home to an important sports facility and reserve, to a number of schools and

colleges, and to buildings and features of heritage and cultural importance. The area is physically constrained,

accommodating the State Highway, main arterial roads, public transport services as well as walking and cycling

routes from the surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

The Basin Reserve area sits at the confluence of the main transport corridors from the southern and eastern

suburbs to the central city. These corridors provide the main access routes to the Wellington Regional Hospital

and the airport. The current road layout at the Basin results in conflicts between these transport movements.

Reducing the conflicts between competing movements around the Basin would help provide more reliable

access for all modes of travel.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes improvements to the transport network in the vicinity of the Basin Reserve:

Early improvements at-grade to improve reliable access for all modes

These improvements include localised widening and the removal or relocation of a limited number of on-

street parking bays to create four continuous traffic lanes between Kent Terrace and Paterson Street (two

eastbound to Mt Victoria tunnel and two southbound) and between Paterson Street and Adelaide Road

(two southbound to Adelaide Rd and two westbound). They may also include ‘queue-jump’ facilities for

public transport at traffic signals.



These changes are minor and low cost. They are designed to have minimal impacts on the Basin Reserve

and adjoining properties. They are expected to provide value for money and help relieve pressure around

the Basin in the short term but are not expected to provide a long-term solution.

Grade Separation

‘Grade separation’ (whereby one flow of traffic passes either over or under another) would significantly

reduce conflicts between the east-west State Highway movements and north-south local road movements

(the latter includes substantial bus movements). Safe and more convenient routes for pedestrians and

cyclists would also be accommodated as part of a design. Providing easy access to the local schools would

also be a priority.

There are a number of possible design configurations for grade separation at the Basin. The LGWM

preference is for an approach that uses the natural topography of the Basin to achieve a sympathetic

design that minimises the extent of any structures required. LGWM has identified a possible approach that

would see the extension to Sussex Street at its current level (over a lowered State Highway 1) with an at-

grade signalised junction where the SH1 eastbound exit meets Sussex Street.

Close collaboration with LGWM stakeholders would be needed at the next stage of the programme to

refine this approach. This would consider a number of issues, such as walking and cycling access to and

around the Basin. It would also seek to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on property, heritage and

cultural values, and improve the function of the Basin Reserve and the character of the surrounding area.

14.3.12. Better Access to the East

Extra Mount Victoria tunnel, including new dedicated walking and cycling facilities, and widening of

Ruahine Street and Wellington Road to improve access for bus/high occupancy vehicles, and dedicated

walking and cycling facilities.

Rationale

Although the existing Mt Victoria tunnel includes a walking and cycling connection, it is of poor quality due to

its sub-standard width and proximity to vehicles, resulting in noise and air quality pollution issues and conflict

between users. A new facility could encourage more people to walk and cycle between the eastern suburbs

and the central city.

The Mt Victoria tunnel operates at or near capacity for much of the day. It acts as a gate that restricts the

number of vehicles entering the central city from the east during peak times. It also operates, in conjunction

with the transport network around the Basin Reserve, to meter the amount of traffic that is released from the

central city towards the east. This function results in queuing traffic, creating unreliable journeys to the

regionally significant destinations of the central city and the airport, and causing some traffic to divert along

less suitable routes such as around the bays or through Newtown. This issue will become more critical as the

available capacity on these other routes is increasingly prioritised away from cars to other modes, including

mass transit.

An additional Mt Victoria tunnel will enable the transport system to cater for growth and improve journey

reliability on this corridor. To align with the LGWM strategic approach of moving more people without more

vehicles, the additional capacity would need to be managed to give priority to walking, cycling, public

transport, and high occupancy vehicles, and reduce traffic on alternative routes, such as Oriental/Evans Bay

Parade and Constable Street in Newtown. This could increase the person-carrying capacity of the corridor

while minimising the increase in vehicles.



An additional tunnel will also improve the resilience of the land transport system by creating the potential to

more quickly reconnect the key recovery centres of the airport, hospital, port, and wider region following a

large natural hazard event. Sections of State Highway 1 would play a key role in this as some local roads have

the potential to be disrupted due to the risks associated with adjacent buildings and slopes.

RPI proposals

The RPI includes improving access to the east of the central city:

Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and Widening Ruahine Street – Wellington Road

An extra Mt Victoria tunnel with a new dedicated and separated walking and cycling connection; and

widened Ruahine Street and Wellington Road with new walking and cycling facilities, to create a higher

quality and more reliable connection for all modes. Allocating the additional lane capacity to public

transport and/or high occupancy vehicles can support a demand management approach that enables an

increase in the throughput of people without significantly increasing the number of vehicle movements.

14.4. Whole of Network Solution

The RPI has been developed as an integrated whole-of-network solution as shown in Figure 21. This

demonstrates a need for a mix of activities in order to create an optimised programme.

Success relies on each component being delivered in an appropriate sequence. A lack of integrated

implementation, meaning that some elements of the integrated programme are put on hold, may result in

lower benefits or poor value for money.

Figure 21 RPI as a whole-of-network solution

Walking improvements

Connected cycleways

Better PT to the north

Dual spine through city

Mass transit station to

airport

Land use & planning

changes

Encourage

through traffic to relocate

away from the central city and

other sensitive locations

Manage the network

to limit increases

in general traffic and operate the

network safely and efficiently

Create dedicated/

priority routesto support key

changes

Enable mode shift

with improvements

to walking, cycling

and public

transport infrastructure, and

land use policies

Encourage mode shiftto walking,

cycling, and public transport

Moving

more

people with

fewer

vehicles

Better access to the

East

Improving the Basin

Reclaiming Te Aro

More reliable access

form the north

Technology

Travel demand

management

Smarter pricing

Safer and more

attractive walking

and cycling

More reliable and

attractive public

transport

Integrated land use

and public transport

On-street parking

CBD

Hutt Road

Golden Mile

Waterfront Quays &

Evans Bay

Newtown

Cycleways through central city

Main routes to the central city

including north

Waterfront and Golden Mile

Mass transit route station-to-airport

Reduce road space

for general traffic in the central city and

along dedicated/

priority routes



14.5. Recommended Programme of Investment Sequencing

Much of the programme will take several years to investigate, design, and consent, and then several years to

construct, so making sure that the programme is delivered to minimise risks and at the same time bring about

early and long-lasting benefits is essential. Careful staging and sequencing of the programme delivery is

needed to manage a number of these critical risks including failure to deliver key programme elements, cost

and time escalations, unacceptable social and economic impacts, failure to realise the programme benefits

and loss of social licence.

This will require an ongoing process of testing and revaluation as the programme moves forward, which will

need to balance a range of strategic and pragmatic considerations such as:

Alignment with the LGWM programme principles and objectives

Actual changes in population and employment, and updated forecasts

Value for money (right things, right way, right time, right price)

Enable and facilitate customer behaviour change and positive experiences of the system as the RPI is

implemented - take people on the journey and help to change to new ways of moving

Manage the system disruption to the communities of Wellington over the life of the construction and

delivery process

Programme constraints such as market capacity to deliver, consenting and approvals processes and

social and environmental impacts. For example, how much capacity the construction industry has to

deliver at any one time

Work within the critical interdependencies of the programme elements.

LGWM has had to carefully consider how these various factors are balanced. For example, sequencing public

transport improvements to the dual spines through the city so that they do not occur simultaneously,

balancing the desirability of implementing public transport improvements as soon as possible against avoiding

unacceptable disruption of the transport system.

Based on critical interdependencies and expected project lead times (and informed by the wider

considerations noted above), an initial sequence has been developed and is set out below in Table 17. It is

important to note that the detailed investigation of the RPI elements and how they fit together may lead to

changes in the sequencing.

Table 17 Indicative RPI sequencing

Programme elements Total years to complete

Key assumptions12

Early improvements 3 to 4 years Assumes large corridor work (e.g. Golden Mile and Hutt Road/Thorndon Quay) is undertaken to a trail installation level of finish. Does not implement place-making or beautification initiatives.

Large volume of simultaneous work assumes that industry has capacity and disruption is manageable.

Walkable City 4 to 7 years Assumes some typical urban improvements like lighting and areas of paving, improved access across roads.

12

If any of these assumptions prove incorrect, this has the potential to impact significantly on timeframes, risks and scope of programme elements



Connected cycleways 3 to 4 years Intended to be delivered as part of early improvements packages.

Public transport to the North (Hutt Road / Thorndon Quay)

3 to 5 years Assume corridor width reallocation, minor priority and civils. Scope includes cycling improvements and some pedestrian improvements. Assume no widening beyond road reserve, hence no designation.

Public transport to / through the city

6 to 8 years Assumes minor civil work, some signal changes, and associated place-making enhancements (Golden Mile assumes full place-making enhancement). Assumes moderate level of complexity for related services work but not full service relocation/upgrade. Assumes only WCC land is needed.

Mass transit to Newtown 10 to 14 years Assumes LRT along LGWM preferred alignment with no feasibility issues.

Assume investigation includes entire mass transit system and related bus changes. Assume a planning alliance to deliver planning and consenting. Assume once consents are granted the physical works are procured separately.

Assume simplified construction sequence of services, slab and stations, track and rolling stock.

Assume that three different sections can be worked on simultaneously.

Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC). Assume property industry capacity (risk).

Assume planning alliance is procured to undertake planning, consenting and reference design for route to Newtown.

Assume traditional consenting path as nationally significant without legislation (board of inquiry without high/supreme court appeals).

This programme is courageous, there is an extreme risk of rework and sunk cost from design acceleration and service relocation prior to obtaining consents.

Assume road closures through Newtown township and centre are accepted by community.

Assume two large TOD style stations and one medium station between station and Newtown (railway station, Te Aro Park, Basin respectively). Assume interdependencies between slab and large stations are well understood and mapped.

Mass transit Newtown to Airport

11 to 15 years Assumes LRT along LGWM preferred alignment with no feasibility issues.

Assume investigation includes entire mass transit system and related bus changes. Assume a planning alliance to deliver planning and consenting. Assume once consents are granted the physical works are procured separately.

Assume simplified construction sequence of tunnel, services, slab and stations, track and rolling stock.

Assume that three different sections can be worked on simultaneously.

Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC). Assume property industry capacity



(risk).

Assume planning alliance is procured to undertake planning, consenting and reference design for route to Airport.


Assume one medium station at the Airport.

Ngauranga to Aotea Quay southbound 4 laning

5 to 7 years Assume scope is four-laning with rebuilt Aotea Quay off-ramp lane drop and additional work to provide specialised port access (Thorndon overbridge seismic performance out of scope).

Assume a simple process with no property issues and related delays with GWRC and Kiwirail.

Terrace tunnel duplication

8 to 10 years Assumes some variation of duplication scheme.

Assume minor property requirements resulting from additional investigation. Main risk is potential to need town belt land.

Reclaiming Te Aro 12 to 16 years Assume funding for property available from outset, and acquisition starts on properties that are highly likely to be required (risk of alignment change as part of BC).

Assume alliance delivery model that is lined up during BC approvals. Alliance scope to deliver planning, consenting, design and construction.


Potential fatal flaw in traditional consenting pathway as Heritage not covered by Board of Inquiry process and project likely to have significant heritage impact.

Assume cut and cover methodology due to grades and access points.

Improving the Basin 9 to 11 years Assume that scope includes a structure, and grade separation of westbound movements as a minimum.

Assume Board of Inquiry consenting process with some opposition.

Mt Victoria tunnel duplication and Ruahine St widening

10 to 12 years Assume duplication methodology similar to previous scheme.

Assume Board of Inquiry consenting process with some opposition.

Several key trade-offs in this sequencing require further investigation before they can be resolved. In

particular:

Whether demand management and extra buses on other routes can create sufficient modal shift to

enable the start of construction of mass transit (and necessary general traffic capacity reductions on

the waterfront quays and through Newtown)

The optimal timing of pricing measures to achieve modal shift, having regard to social equity issues

and availability of transport choices

If sufficient modal shift cannot be achieved through demand management, whether relocation of

general traffic capacity to an improved bypass route can provide a practical alternative in providing

effective access to key destinations.

A resulting indicative sequence is shown in Figure 22.


Figure 22 Recommended Programme of Investment indicative sequencing, key activities and decision points



14.6. Recommended Programme Assessment

14.6.1. Cost Assessment A rough order of costs has been developed for the elements of the RPI. These costs are shown in

Table 18 and should be considered indicative as outturn costs (client managed costs, construction

costs and professional fees). Contingency has been qualitatively assessed and applied to the base

estimate. Funding risk has not been applied at this stage.

Detailed design for the large interventions has not been undertaken and there will be a range of

possible options for most of the interventions. This report bases the cost estimation at this stage on

one of the possible options for each intervention. In addition, there a number of significant

assumptions that will require testing as part of more detailed option development, particularly those

related to underground services, cultural heritage, contaminated land and property purchase.

The summary report for cost assessment is shown in Appendix J.

Table 18 Recommended Programme of Investment Cost Assessment

RPI ELEMENT ESTIMATED COST $M

(2018 UNINFLATED)

Walkable City 70*

Connected Cycleways 30

Public Transport to the north and to/through the city ** 300

Mass Transit – City to Newtown*** 990

Mass Transit – Newtown to Airport*** 450

Smarter Transport Network 30

Smarter Pricing 30

Extra Mt Victoria Tunnel – Duplicate Ruahine St. / Wellington Rd. 480

Basin Reserve Improvements 130

Extra Terrace Tunnel and 4th lane Southbound 400

Te Aro Tunnel and Park 1100

TOTAL 4010

* Cost reflects an allocation to undertake early improvements and commence an ongoing programme of larger scale public space improvements ** Excludes rail improvements (funded currently outside of LGWM) *** Cost estimates based on a Light Rail Transit style for Mass Transit



14.6.2. Investment Objective Assessment The RPI has been assessed against LGWM investment objectives and other key impact areas using both qualitative and quantitative measures and a variety of assessment tools including modelling. The current assessment contains a degree of uncertainty, reflecting the current state of programme development. This uncertainty will be reduced as different RPI components are investigated and designed in more detail.

Table 19 summarises the assessment of the RPI against the LGWM Investment Objective KPIs. A more complete and detailed assessment is shown in Appendix C.

Table 20 summarises other key impacts of the RPI that have been identified.



Table 19 Summary of RPI Assessment against Investment Objectives

Objective: Key Performance Indicator Description Comment

Liveability

Amenity Index Measure of the quality of the urban environment including

greenspace, urban design, traffic volumes/speeds, and pedestrian

space

Amenity improvements across the central city due to increased pedestrian space along Golden Mile, urban activation along side streets, enhancements to the urban realm along the mass transit route, and new open space above Karo Drive. Reduced traffic speeds (to 30km/h) and a reduction in traffic volumes in the central city, particularly along the Waterfront and Vivian Street due to reallocation of capacity.

Carbon dioxide emissions

Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city

Transport generated emissions in the Wellington region are projected to continuously decrease over time (50% reduction by 2036) due to changes in the vehicle fleet (fuel efficiency and electric vehicles).

The RPI contributes a further 18% emission reduction per capita within the CBD. Road pricing will have the biggest impact on emissions and the public transport, walking and cycling improvements in the RPI are critical foundations to enable introduction of pricing. Mass transit will support more intensive development in the central city and key centres, meaning more people use public transport and more destinations are within convenient walking and cycling distances.

Urban development

potential

An assessment of the opportunities for urban

development and value uplift

Mass transit will facilitate urban regeneration and more intensive development around stops and key centres. This will contribute to land value increase from additional residential homes, and jobs facilitated by intensification. The RPI will increase the combined value of property along the Mass Transit route by up to $560m.

Efficient and reliable access

Network catchment

The number of people living and working within 30 minutes of key

locations

Accessibility to the central city and key regional destinations will improve by all modes:

General traffic – 34% increase in population catchment within 30 mins of airport

Public transport – 19% increase in population catchment within 30 mins of CBD.

Travel time reliability

The reliability of travel time for journeys by different modes to

key regional locations

Travel time reliability to and through the central city and to key regional destinations will improve by all modes:

Dual dedicated public transport spines through the CBD improve public transport reliability by 50-80% through this part of the network

Up to 50% improvement in travel time reliability for traffic accessing the city from the North

Up to 35% improvement in travel time reliability for traffic accessing the airport from across the city

50-80% improvement in travel time reliability for public transport journeys to the



central city from the airport or eastern suburbs.

Reduced reliance on private vehicles

System occupancy

The ratio of people travelling to the central city (by all modes)

against private vehicles travelling to the central city

System occupancy will increase due to increased public transport and active mode use and more intensification in the central city /Te Aro

Public transport mode share increases from around 35% to 45% in the morning peak

15-20% reduction in vehicle numbers entering the central city during the morning peak.

Level of service for walking

Delays for people walking in the central city

People walking in the central city will be delayed less due to reduced traffic volumes. Pedestrian crossing priority will be enhanced along key pedestrian routes in the central city.

Level of service for cycling

An assessment of the quality of cycling facilities

The level of service for cycling will improve from poor to good or very good throughout the central city and for connections to the east via Mt Victoria tunnel. Some improvement for cyclists when connecting to the north and the south.

Safety

Safety for walking and

cycling

An estimate of the safety benefits for people walking and cycling in and around the central

city

There will be fewer fatal and serious injury crashes (estimated 30% reduction) for pedestrians and cyclists due to less traffic and slower traffic speeds in central city, and less conflicts. Improved pedestrian priority and crossing facilities will also contribute to safer city streets.

Adaptable to disruptions

Network resilience

An assessment of the network’s resilience to disruption caused by

large-scale natural hazards

Access between communities and key regional facilities (hospital, airport, port) will be more secure following a large-scale natural hazard event. The transport network will be more resilience to small scale disruption due to additional capacity on both traffic and public transport networks.



OTHER IMPACTS

The following impacts have not yet been specifically quantified due to the recommended programme of investment being in the early stages of development with a high level of uncertainty around some elements of the RPI, however it is important that they are flagged at this stage as their scale could be significant.

Table 20 Summary of RPI Assessment – other impacts

IMPACT: Type of impact Scale Mitigation

Parking

What: On-street car parks will need to be removed

Where: Through the central city and along main corridors to south, east, north

Why: To reallocate space to moving people

The number of parks affected and where will be determined as detailed design progresses.

City wide along key corridors Around 1100 – 1300 on-street parking spaces lost over duration of RPI

Parking mitigation strategy will be a key element of the programme

Improvements to public transport and walking and cycling links, coupled with pricing, will reduce the demand for parking

Built environment and heritage

What: Private property and heritage items affected

Where: Along main corridors to south and east – mass transit and SH1 routes

Why: To provide space for mass transit and other key infrastructure works

Exact nature of impacts are not currently known. May include land take, impact on property frontage or setting, or require a building to be changed or moved.

Localised

Urban design improvements will be incorporated into designs for transport improvements

Detailed design will progress cognisant of the requirement to preserve heritage features and enhance the overall built environment

Construction disruption

What: Road or lane closures, reduced speeds, stop/start conditions

Where: Through the central city and along main corridors to south & east – mass transit & SH1

Why: To accommodate construction of new and improved infrastructure

City wide

Sequencing will be important to manage demand and available capacity

Travel demand management techniques will be employed



14.6.3. Economic Assessment A high-level economic analysis has been undertaken to understand the likely scale of economic

benefits that can be expected from implementation of the RPI. This economic analysis is summarised

in Appendix K.

Two scenarios have been evaluated and are outlined below:

Medium Growth Scenario

This scenario assumes a medium level of population growth in the region, equivalent to 50,000

additional residents in Wellington City in 2046 compared to 2013 and population growth of around

100,000 across the region during the same time period. This approach is consistent with assumptions

made for other transport and land use planning projects across the Wellington Region. It assumes

static land use distribution, in alignment with current projections.

The construction period is assumed to be approximately 18 years and the evaluation period is 40

years. Benefits have been modelled from 2026 to 2036 and are assumed to increase at 1% per annum

from 2036 to 2059.

High Growth Scenario

The high growth-redistributed scenario assumes 80,000 additional residents in Wellington City in the

Do Minimum in 2046 compared to 2013 (equivalent figure for medium growth is 50,000) and re-

distribution of growth as a result of the programme. This is a project specific scenario reflecting the

fact that an improvement programme of this scale may catalyse additional growth and result in re-

distribution of population and employment. The high growth scenario also assumes that there are no

other constraints to growth in terms of land and other infrastructure, benefits increase at 2% pa post

2036, and a longer construction period that delays high-cost components.

Initial analysis suggests that benefits in 2036 could be between 20% and 35% greater than the

medium growth scenario as a result of the following:

Additional population growth, compounded by re-distribution of population / employment

growth to the corridor where investment is focussed

A Do Minimum scenario that has higher levels of congestion results in a programme that

delivers higher benefits per person

Lack of capacity on the public transport and private vehicle network constrains growth and

the RPI delivers significantly higher benefits by removing capacity constraints.

A summary of the key elements of the RPI, along with their estimated costs is shown in Table 21.



Table 21 RPI costs – low and high estimates (undiscounted, includes opex)

Programme Component Low (90% of

central) Central

High (120% of central)

Walkable City $60 $70 $80

Connected Cycleway $30 $30 $40

Public transport (City and North) $400 $440 $530

Mass Transit - Station to Newtown $1,000 $1,120 $1,340

Mass Transit - Newtown to Airport $500 $500 $600

Mt Victoria Tunnel and Ruahine Street $450 $500 $600

Improving Basin $120 $130 $160

Terrace Tunnel and 4th southbound lane $370 $410 $490

Karo Drive undergrounding $1,000 $1,120 $1,340

Smarter Transport Network $30 $35 $40

Smarter Pricing $30 $35 $40

Total $3,940 $4,380 $5,260

A peer review of these costs concluded that the process for estimating them was sound and that at

the next stage there is scope for value engineering to reduce costs without reducing benefits. Due to

the complexity of the programme and its significance beyond a pure transport project, a wide range

of benefits have been counted to assess the impact of the programme, not only traditional travel time

benefits but also on wider outcomes for the city.

Benefits quantified include:

Health benefits from increases in cycling, walking, and walking to public transport that

increases physical activity and overall health

Liveability benefits from reduced severance and increased green space

Safety benefits for people walking, on bikes, and in cars due to fewer and less serious crashes

Environmental benefits, including reduced carbon emissions, noise, and water pollution

Economic benefits from increased productivity and a transport system that supports growth

More reliable, more pleasant and less crowded travel offered by mass transit that delivers

benefits above and beyond traditional travel time benefits

Changes in the future distribution of housing and employment in the city and region as a

result of the programme

Wider economic benefits from increases in productivity, agglomeration and land values.

Accordingly, the economic assessment of the RPI has used elements of traditional transportation

economic analysis, coupled with analysis to understand the potential linkages between transport

interventions and land use development. The benefit streams assessment shows:

Medium growth scenario - Total benefits quantified are between $1.4 and $2.7 billion

High growth – redistributed scenario - Total benefits quantified are between $1.7 and $3.3

billion

Total travel time benefits for the medium growth scenario of $1.0bn and $1.8bn (high growth

– redistributed scenario: $1.2bn and $2.2bn) split roughly 50:50 between private vehicle and

public transport



Wider economic benefits in the range $600m to $1.3bn (High Growth – Redistributed: $800m

to $1.6bn)

Combined health and safety benefits of $200m to $400m

Table 22 provides a summary of the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) ranges for the RPI across both of the

scenarios (where the lower benefits come from the medium growth scenario and the higher benefits

come from the higher growth scenario).

Two BCR ranges have been produced. The first captures the total cost of the RPI, the second captures

the reduced cost to the government (BCR-G) on the assumption that a proportion of the cost can be

funded through alternative funding streams (such as developer contributions).

Table 22 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary (costs and benefits discounted)

Full Cost BCR Cost to Government BCR-G

Lower benefits

Central Higher benefits

Lower benefits

Central Higher benefits

Full Programme with cordon

charge

Costs $2,350 $2,350 $2,350 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Benefits $1,350 $2,350 $3,300 $1,350 $2,350 $3,300

BCR 0.6 1.0 1.4 0.7 1.2 1.7

Table 22 can be summarised as follows:

The ‘central’ assessment assumes a level of benefits between the middle of what is

achievable under a medium growth scenario and the middle of what is achievable under a

high growth scenario

The full cost RPI BCR is likely to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.4, reflecting the programme’s high

benefits, as well as high costs

If third party funding of 15% of totals costs can be identified, the cost to government (BCR-G)

is likely to be in the range of 0.7 to 1.7.

The major opportunities for improvement and refinement at the next stage relate to:

Further detailed modelling and planning of programme timing and sequencing to optimise

the benefits and mitigate construction impacts

More detailed assessment of costs to understand whether there are areas where costs could

be saved whilst preserving benefits

Benchmarking against other jurisdictions to be more certain about where the benefits and

costs might sit within the currently reported range

More detailed investigation for the programme elements that are relatively unknown in New

Zealand, such as a more robust assessment of the benefits and impacts of pricing.

Further investigation will allow the BCR to be assessed more accurately, but it is unlikely to result in a

BCR outside the current reported range.

When estimating the BCR in the next stage of the project, it will be important to consider any

additional interventions to what is currently proposed in the RPI that emerge from further detailed

investigations. Further sensitivity analysis will be needed in relation to:

Costs that are significantly lower than currently expected. This could potentially be achieved

through use of alternative or emerging technologies



Possible deferral of higher cost components of the programme without significantly affecting

the shorter to medium term benefits that may result for further work on sequencing.

Potentially higher levels of population and employment growth – effectively a continuation of

recent population trends for a 15 to 20 year period – as has been assumed for the High

Growth – Redistributed scenario

Higher wider economic benefits than have currently been calculated, driven to a certain

extent by higher growth, accepting the fact that the wider economic benefits (WEBS) as

currently estimated contribute around 30%-40% of overall benefits, a figure which is broadly

in line with projects of a similar size and nature and reflecting the transformational nature of

the RPI.

14.6.4. Investment Assessment Framework (2018-21) Results Alignment Assessment

The results alignment assessment as set out in the Investment Assessment Framework (2018-21)

considered several different activity classes, reflecting the wide nature of the RPI. This assessment is

shown in Appendix L, and can be summarised as:

Road safety promotion and demand management programmes – High Results Alignment

Walking and cycling improvement activities –High Results Alignment

Public transport improvement activities, including rapid transit and transitional rail – Very

High Results Alignment

Road improvement activities – High Results Alignment

Although road improvement RPI elements have High results alignment, they are enablers to mitigate

and manage the impacts of the Very High elements in order to achieve LGWM objectives and the

future vision for Wellington.

Therefore, having regard to the integrated nature of the LGWM investment programme, the RPI is

indicated as having High/Very High results alignment overall. It delivers strong outcomes against GPS

result areas:

Metropolitan and high growth urban areas are better connected and accessible

Better access to markets, business areas, and supporting tourism

Increased mode shift from private vehicle trips to walking, cycling and public transport

Improved network resilience for the most critical connections

Reduce transport’s negative effects on the local environment and public health

Costs and Benefits Appraisal

As discussed in Section 14.6.3, the RPI BCR is likely to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.4. Achieving a BCR

greater than 1 would be dependent upon a number of conditions, such as population and

employment growth, increased wider economic benefits, and reduced costs, each of which will be

investigated in further detail during the next stage of investigations.

Therefore, the RPI is assessed as having an indicative Low costs and benefits appraisal rating, which

will need to be confirmed during later business case development phases. This reflects the uncertain

nature of the economics, and potential to achieve a benefit-cost ratio in the 1 to 3 range.



Urgency Assessment

There are several reasons why detailed investigation cannot be deferred beyond the 2018/21 NLTP

period.

Public transport services in Wellington will approach capacity within the next ten years. In

reality, more and more services within the core of the peak will reach capacity. As the

perception of public transport as a viable travel choice erodes, people and businesses will

increasingly respond by changing behaviour.

A step change in public transport through implementation of a mass transit system will

require a long lead time due to the complexities of Wellington’s compact urban form.

Uncertainty around the detail of the projects proposed by LGWM (e.g. property impacts) can

result in reduced levels of development and investment. Developer investment will be

required to maximise the land use changes that are integrated with the transport

components of LGWM.

In addition, the rationale for commencing early improvements within the current NLTP period is that

they:

Provide significant benefits relative to their cost.

Can start to create travel behaviour change in a smooth way. Encouraging use of walking,

cycling, and public transport as viable travel choices prior to the mass transit system being

implemented.

Enable disruption from construction of larger programme elements to be managed through

providing improved alternative choices in the interim.

14.7. Programme Risks and Uncertainties

The key risks identified at this stage of the programme’s development are summarised in Table 23

below.

Table 23 Risks, potential consequences, and management strategy

RISK TYPE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The growth in regional population and employment may be lower or higher than forecast

The distribution of growth between the central city and the rest of the region may be different to that forecast

As the growth forecasts are the key drivers of transport demand, the need for changes to the transport system may be less urgent or more urgent than currently forecast

A wide range of growth forecasts is being assumed so as to ensure there is a high probability that the actual growth will be within the range

Precise sequencing for several elements of the RPI will be informed by monitoring

The modal preferences of customers may be changing due to economic, social or technological changes

The transport modelling carried out to date may be over-estimating or under-estimating the demand for travel by private vehicles in relation to travel by other modes


Funding priorities of central and local government may change over time

The RPI may not reflect funding priorities, and the programme may not deliver anticipated benefits if only partially implemented

The RPI has been developed to be flexible to funding priorities




The RPI will draw substantial funding from a number of sources, and some of these may not eventuate e.g. economic downturn

Parts of the RPI may not receive funding, and the programme may not deliver anticipated benefits if only partially implemented

Ongoing collaborative and integrated business case development, design, consenting and implementation

The RPI has been developed to be flexible to funding availability

Major infrastructure elements within the programme will have long lead times for planning and consenting processes

Wellington City may fall behind other competitor cities as a result of the transport system not addressing the problems or facilitating the opportunities in a timely manner

Using a programme business case in which all agencies are well coordinated should speed up any pre-construction phases and reduce the overall time needed to implement the investment programme


Forecasting for large scale natural hazard events is an uncertain process

Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be insufficient to facilitate timely recovery following a larger than anticipated event

Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be unnecessary if an event does not occur

Align with ongoing resiliency planning within the region, including exploring appetite for risk

The RPI assumes complementary land use planning changes e.g. district plan changes which may not eventuate

The opportunity to leverage investment in the transport system to facilitate urban development will be lost

The RPI may not represent a value for money investment if it does not facilitate urban generation in the central city and Newtown

Decision points prior to implementation of major infrastructure that will reflect monitoring of land use policy


Risk that investment will not be integrated with shift in transport system from technological advances

Potential to reinforce Wellington’s technological and innovative reputation is lost

Introducing unproven systems may result in sub-optimal outcomes or abortive investment

Staying flexible in reviewing the programme to incorporate changing technologies when they are judged to be sufficiently mature

A lack of integrated implementation e.g. resulting from opposition to potential intervention impacts

Key elements of the programme may be put on hold, undermining the effectiveness of the programme as a whole


Ongoing engagement and consultation with the public and stakeholders

Resource and/or funding constraints may result in programme elements being delayed/deferred

Delaying elements of the programme may make it difficult or impossible to satisfactorily manage disruption to the transport system during construction phases (e.g. closure of lanes to allow mass transit infrastructure construction)

High priority given to maintaining transport system performance through early design of transport system transformation programme element

There may be pressures to change the balance of central and local government funding arrangements over the implementation of the RPI

Key elements of the programme may not be implemented, undermining the effectiveness of the programme as a whole

Build a high level of support for the programme at local, regional and central government levels

Significant cost of RPI may preclude other transport investments in region

The Wellington region has a limited ability to invest in transport projects outside of LGWM

The RPI has been developed to be flexible to changing transport demand

PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Affordability Constraints


PART C – PREFERRED WAY FORWARD

15. AFFORDABILITY CONTRAINTS (2019) The recommended programme of investment (RPI) as developed in Part B has been endorsed by the Transport

Agency’s Board as a programme business case, indicating that the strategic approach and outcomes sought

are valid, and that the RPI was the preferred way forward at that point in time (November 2018). This support

did not include commitment to progressing to the next stage (development of detailed business cases and

implementing early improvements) until further work had been carried out on the funding and financing

arrangements. LGWM partners were not able to commit to funding the full RPI because of the programme’s

high costs and the competing funding demands of other infrastructure investment projects in Wellington and

other regions over the next 20 years.

Given the scale of LGWM, the funding of the programme will have significant implications for the levels of fuel

excise duty and road user charges over that period. There may also be a need to use long term borrowing to

finance any residual gap between the cash flow requirements of LGWM and what the NLTF can fund on a pay-

as-you-go basis. These NLTF revenue and borrowing decisions are for the Government to decide rather than

the Transport Agency.

The Minister of Transport worked with the WCC Mayor and GWRC Chair (with advice from the Ministry of

Transport and LGWM) to develop an “Indicative Package” of their preferences that would fit within a fundable

envelope, aimed at making optimal progress towards the LGWM vision. The Indicative Package that emerged

from these discussions is set out in Section 16.

Following announcement of the Indicative Package, LGWM released a number of technical documents and

material that has underpinned the programme business case. This material and the way in which it relates to

this Programme Business Case and LGWM summary material is shown in Appendix N.

PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Indicative Package


16. INDICATIVE PACKAGE (2019) The Indicative Package, when formally supported by the LGWM partners and central government, will

represent the preferred way forward for implementing LGWM. The Indicative Package comprises the

following components from the RPI:

A walkable city - accessibility and amenity improvements, setting safer speeds for vehicles, walking

improvements include in major components

Connected cycleways - cycleways on Featherston St, Thorndon Quay, Courtenay Place – Dixon St,

Taranaki St, Willis St, Victoria St, Kent and Cambridge Terrace and Bowen St

Public transport (city and north) - dual public transport spine through the central city on the Golden

Mile and Waterfront Quays; rail network improvements; and bus priority on Thorndon Quay and Hutt

Rd

Smarter transport network - full integrated ticketing; transition to integrated transport network

operating systems; travel demand management measures including Mobility as a Service, parking

policy improvements and education and engagement

Mass (Rapid) Transit - provide mass transit as part of the wider public transport network from the

railway station to Newtown, and Newtown to the airport

Unblocking the Basin Reserve - package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all

modes; Basin Reserve grade separation between north-south movements, east-west movements and

any mass transit corridors

An extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and widening at Ruahine Street - extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and

widening of Ruahine St and Wellington road to improve access for buses and dedicated walking and

cycling facilities.

The extra Mt Victoria tunnel project is included in the package, and is expected to proceed late in the first

decade once:

Mass transit to Newtown has been delivered and is operational

The detailed business case for the project has been undertaken and updated demand modelling

confirms that the projects will support a reduction in single occupant vehicle journeys, during peak

periods, and mode shift to public and active transport.

The total capital cost of the Indicative Package is estimated as $3,665M (2019 risk adjusted capital costs).

Table 24 sets out a more detailed description of the Indicative Package components, the estimated capital

cost of each component and the objectives the components are aimed at achieving.



Table 24 Indicative Package of Investments and Costs

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION OBJECTIVES 2019 ESTIMATED

CAPITAL COST ($M)13

A walkable city Accessibility and amenity improvements, setting safer speeds for vehicles, and

walking improvements.

A city that is safe and attractive to walk around. 95

Connected cycleways Cycleways on Featherston Street, Thorndon Quay, Courtenay Place, Dixon Street,

Taranaki Street, Willis Street, Victoria Street, Kent and Cambridge Terraces and

Bowen Street

A connected and safe central city cycleway network integrated with the wider cycleway

network.

40

Public transport (city and north) Dual public transport spine through the central city on the Golden Mile and

Waterfront Quays, rail network improvements and bus priority on Thorndon Quay

and Hutt Road.

A reliable public transport system that enables Wellington to grow and encourages public

transport mode shift, better public transport choices to the north and enables a 30

percent increase in rail peak patronage.

360

Smarter transport network Full integrated ticketing, transition to integrated transport network operating

systems, travel demand management measures including Mobility as a Service,

parking policy improvements and education and engagement.

A well-managed transport system that makes best use of infrastructure and helps smooth

transition through implementation of the Indicative Package.

80

Rapid transit Provide rapid transit as part of the wider public transport network from the railway

station to Newtown, and Newtown to the airport.

Improves travel choice through the city with an attractive public transport option to the

hospital and airport and creates an opportunity to share a more compact and sustainable

Wellington City.

2,200

Unblocking the Basin Reserve Package of minor at-grade changes to improve reliable access for all modes, Basin

Reserve grade separation between north-south movements, east-west movements

and any rapid transit corridors.

Reduces conflict between different movements and modes creating more reliable access

for all modes.

190

Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel

and widening of Ruahine Street

Extra Mount Victoria Tunnel and widening of Ruahine Street/Wellington Road to

improve access for buses and dedicated walking and cycling facilities.

Improves access reliability and travel choice from the east for all modes, relocates through

traffic away from Evans Bay route and Constable Street, onto the state highway, and

ensures network function while rapid transit is constructed in Newtown.

700

Total 3,665

13

Capital costs only. Cabinet cost estimates vary from LGWM estimates as they represent risk adjusted estimates.



16.1. Funding and Financing the Indicative Package

16.1.1. Funding Shares The Indicative Package proposes that Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council will

together contribute 40 percent of the costs of the Indicative Package, and central government will contribute

60 percent through the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

The share of NLTF funding for each project in the Indicative Package may differ from the overall 60:40 split.

For example, projects in the package that align closely with the results identified in the GPS may be eligible for

a targeted enhanced Funding Assistance Rate to accelerate their delivery. State Highway projects within the

Indicative Package are unlikely to receive more than 50 percent funding from Central Government.

Over 30 years, the Government share of the Indicative Package is estimated to be $3.8 billion, based on total

capital expenditure of $2.2 billion (60% share of total 2018 capital cost). This amount allows for cost increases,

inflation and the cost of financing.

The ability for the NLTF to fund central government’s share of the LGWM Indicative Package assumes the

Wellington region will receive 10.5 percent of NLTF revenues over 30 years. The basis for this allocation is that

the Wellington region currently has 10.7 percent of New Zealand’s population, although this is expected to

drop slightly in the medium term.

In addition to this, it is proposed that the rapid transit component of the Indicative Package will be financed

and repaid over a 50-year period.

16.2. Assessment of the Indicative Package

Preliminary assessment of the Indicative Package has been undertaken at a high level, and is less

comprehensive than the evaluation of the RPI. To enable evaluation, LGWM has made a number of

assumptions on the form and function of the Indicative Package elements that are likely to change as a result

of further investigation and design.

Key findings include:

Evaluation of the Indicative Package shows a slight increase in mode shift to public transport

compared with the RPI

Reduction in capacity on road network results in increased travel time and variability on the state

highway and local road networks

o Relative to base, do minimum and RPI

o Mitigated by the assumed effectiveness of a pricing mechanism

Sensitivity tests show:

o An effective pricing mechanism is required to support the Indicative Package

o A cordon charge is likely to be more effective than a parking levy, but further analysis is

required to confirm this

A pricing mechanism is essential for the effectiveness of the Indicative Package

o The modelling assumes the pricing mechanism is effective and has been deployed to deliver

outcomes, rather than as a means to calculate the appropriate charging level. Further analysis

needs to be done to determine the level of pricing and preferred pricing approach.

o Sensitivity testing shows that a cordon charge is likely to be more effective than a parking levy.

A cordon charge would further reduce trips through the CBD. Further analysis is required to

confirm this.



16.2.1. Key Performance Indicators Assessment

KPI 1: Amenity Index

The Indicative Package will improve amenity in the central city compared with the Do Minimum. But this

improvement will not be as great as the RPI on Vivian Street, Karo Drive, and local streets, such as the

waterfront Quays and Taranaki St, due to higher traffic volumes.

KPI 2: Transport-related CO2 emissions in the central city

Lesser improvement in CBD Vehicle Kilometres Travelled for the Indicative Package (compared to RPI) due to a

higher number of through trips.

Less improvement in CBD CO2 emissions under the Indicative Package (compared to RPI) due to a parking levy

being less effective at managing travel demand through the city than a cordon charge.

KPI 3: Opportunities for urban development and value uplift

Under the RPI:

Mass transit with a high degree of separation/priority will deliver strong urban development potential

Te Aro improvements will deliver modest urban development potential but provide significant urban

amenity benefits.

Under the Indicative Programme:

Mass transit with a high degree of separation/priority will deliver strong urban development potential

No improvements in urban development potential in Te Aro.

KPI 4: System occupancy

Table 25 shows the slight improvement in occupancy for the Indicative Package (4.0) relative to the RPI (3.9).

Table 25 System occupancy assessment for the Indicative Package

ENTERING THE CENTRAL CITY IN THE MORNING PEAK 2016 DO-MINIMUM RPI INDICATIVE PACKAGE

Number of People 82,000 95,000 98,000 98,000

Number of Vehicles 31,000 31,000 25,500 24,500

Occupancy (People per Vehicle) 2.7 3.1 3.9 4.0

KPI 5: Delays for people walking in the central city

The Indicative Package will deliver similar walking benefits to the RPI with a few exceptions:

The Te Aro tunnel in the RPI delivers benefits to pedestrians by removing severance and providing a

higher amenity pedestrian corridor. Under the Indicative Package these benefits won’t be available

Vivian Street in the RPI becomes a two-way city street delivering opportunities for improved

pedestrian facilities along and across the street. In the Indicative Package improvements for people

walking on Vivian Street are likely to be less effective due to higher traffic volumes.



KPI 6: The quality of cycling facilities

The quality of cycling facilities resulting from the Indicative Package is likely to be similar to the RPI, noting

some impact as a result of likely higher traffic volumes but further design is required to understand the

implications of not including the Te Aro improvements.

KPI 7: The number of people living and working within 30 mins of key destinations

Table 26 shows a reduction in network catchment for private vehicles for the Indicative Package relative to the

RPI. Public transport catchment is likely to be similar.

Table 26 Network catchment assessment for the Indicative Package

NUMBER OF PEOPLE LIVING… DO-MINIMUM RPI INDICATIVE PACKAGE

…within 30 minutes driving time of the central city 274,000 356,000 314,000

…within 30 minutes public transport travel time to central city 179,000 221,000 221,000

KPI 8: The reliability of travel time by different modes to key regional destinations

The Indicative Package delivers less improvement in travel time variability for private vehicles than the RPI.

More detailed work is required to confirm the overall network impact.

Improvements to public transport travel time variability are similar for the Indicative Package and the RPI,

assuming that public transport has sufficient capacity to meet extra demand. An implied assumption is that

pricing brings an opportunity to reallocate road space to public transport and makes it more reliable.

KPI 9: Deaths and serious injuries for people walking and cycling in and around the central city

Safety for people walking and cycling was qualitatively assessed:

The current accident rate is relatively low

Safety issues are generally at intersections

Intersection improvements (at detailed design) are likely to result in safety improvements

Removal of general traffic, or reduction in traffic speed is likely to result in safety improvements

The Indicative Package does not perform as strongly as the RPI as it addresses fewer conflicts,

particularly in Te Aro and for some sections of the local network such as Taranaki Street and the

Waterfront, which will see relatively higher numbers of vehicle through-trips.

KPI 10: Network resilience to disruption caused by large-scale natural hazards

An extra Mt Victoria tunnel and a possible new tunnel at Mount Albert will deliver resilience and operational

flexibility benefits. Resilience improvements on the key northern corridor will be limited without the 4th lane

southbound, the second Terrace Tunnel, and improvements through Te Aro.

Other Significant Impacts

Compared with the RPI, the Indicative Package will deliver:

A similar reduction to on-street parking

Reduced built environment and heritage impacts due to the absence of a tunnel through Te Aro



Reduced construction disruption impact due to absence of a tunnel through Te Aro, Terrace Tunnel

duplication and 4th lane southbound.

16.2.2. Economic Assessment

A preliminary assessment has been undertaken for the Indicative Package. While this assessment was coarser

than the level of assessment undertaken for the RPI, the assessment indicates the following relative economic

benefits at a high level:

Similar levels of benefit for public transport

Similar levels of benefit for value uplift along the mass transit corridor, assuming a similar mass transit

system as the RPI

Reduced agglomeration benefits, in part due to less improvement in accessibility via the state highway

Reduced levels of benefit for walking, cycling, safety, health, and amenity due to higher number of

vehicle through-trips in the central city

For road network travel time:

o Initial modelling suggests the Indicative Package delivers approximately 25% of RPI benefits

o Modelling of road network travel time is optimistic and likely underestimates increase in

congestion in central city

o Further work is needed at the detailed business case stage to quantify the impacts.

The benefit-cost-ratio of the Indicative Package is likely to be in a similar range to the BCR range reported for

the RPI (0.6 – 1.4 full cost BCR). Further analysis, modelling and optimisation of the Indicative Package will be

required to confirm this.

16.3. Whole-of-System Solution

While the Indicative Package has the potential to deliver on the strategic intent of the RPI, a whole-of-system

solution similar to that presented in Section 14.4 will still be needed to unlock all benefits and deliver an

optimised programme. Indicative Package programme elements are interdependent, meaning that it is still

important to retain flexibility to review programme elements with regard to each other in future phases.

16.4. Sequencing, Interdependencies and Trigger Points

LGWM has not undertaken any additional detailed consideration of sequencing, interdependencies and trigger

points following the announcement of the Indicative Package. However, many of the findings and identified

risks from sequencing the RPI are still relevant, as is the need to continue reviewing these issues as LGWM

develops into a new entity and moves closer to delivering the programme. Key recommendations for moving

forward include:

A focus on staging, sequencing and transport system transformation must be embedded in the design,

resourcing and funding of the LGWM delivery vehicle. It must also form part of the scope of all

detailed business case (DBC) processes with coordination and alignment managed as an ongoing

process across these elements

A range of principles and criteria to inform the programme staging and sequencing needs to be

identified and agreed. Draft principles and criteria were identified in the LGWM Staging report and

these should be tested and reconfirmed in the next phase of work linked to the DBC processes

Engage with other major infrastructure programmes in the Wellington region. This should include

processes and some form of working relationships to map programme timing and delivery to consider

both opportunities and constraints



Engage with and learn from other similar transformative transport programmes to ensure lessons and

tools from these are drawn upon and utilised as part of the LGWM programme

Consider, plan and deliver broader opportunities to minimise the disruptive impacts of change

through engaging with communities to understand how to provide alternative business and people

place opportunities during the delivery of the programme. This will require dedicated resourcing and

funding

Develop a step change in capability to manage operations planning and coordination. This needs to be

across all three partners to ensure that this capability can link from a strategic long-term view to day

to day operations management. This needs to be integrated with the mandate and scope of the

integrated delivery vehicle of the programme and will require full buy-in from all three programme

partners

Engage early with utilities operators and develop a strategic approach to managing the impacts on

utilities – this should also inform the scope, location and detail of projects as outlined in the first

recommendation. This needs to be well resourced and prioritised.

PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Management Case


17. MANAGEMENT CASE Achieving the benefits sought by LGWM in an optimised way will require a significant commitment of

resources and important policy decisions. This will include:

Increased funding allocations through Long Term Plan and NLTP amendments

Agreement to use new funding mechanisms to generate revenue needed to meet local share

requirements

Changes to land use planning settings to enable urban intensification to complement new

transport infrastructure

Agreement to an integrated delivery model.

In addition, some central government decisions will be needed to enable the programme to progress.

These include:

Funding commitments via the GPS and other mechanisms as appropriate

Enabling legislation to permit new funding, pricing and delivery mechanisms

Partnering with local government to explore new and innovative ways of financing and

delivery (e.g. an urban development agency).

Regional partner support for the programme will also be important. This will include:

Support to implement the programme, including wider regional connections

Continued commitment to supporting land use policies that reinforce a shift to public

transport, walking and cycling.

17.1. Delivery Model

There are several options for how to implement a programme of investment. These range from

delivery of different pieces of the programme by the three partner agencies under ‘business as usual’

arrangements, through to collaborative agreements, or even formation of a new agency charged with

delivery. LGWM, having completed the programme business case phase, is restructuring into a more

delivery focused entity to deliver the bulk of the programme.

While transitioning from the programme business case to detailed investigation and delivery, several

tasks will be ongoing. These include establishing the new delivery entity, undertaking detailed

investigations, and the early delivery of less complicated programme elements. Governance and

oversight arrangements will continue in the interim with high level involvement from the three

partners.

17.2. Next Steps for Delivery

The programme has been initially arranged into indicative discrete elements (as shown in Figure 23)

based on their interdependencies. Common aspects such as programming and modelling are shown

as work streams that sit across all the programme elements to ensure consistency of information and

delivery as illustrated in Figure 24.



Figure 23 Indicative Packaging of Programme Elements

Figure 24 Indicative Structure of Packages

Place-making

Pedestrian improvements

Cycling improvements

Bus improvements on main routes to northern suburbs

Bus improvements to and through the central city

Unlocking rail network capacity (GWRC/KR led outside programme)

Safer speeds

Thorndon Quay and Hutt Road

Golden Mile

Technology and network enhancements

Suburban bus priority measures

Central city bus priority measures

Early delivery

Reconfigure urban corridors

Mass transit route from Wellington Railway Station to Newtown

Mass transit route to the Airport

Complimentary bus/train changes to optimise the entire public

transport system

Mass Transit / Public Transport system

Travel Demand Management

Integrated transport operating system

Managing travel demand

Programme Elements Details

Ngauranga to Aotea Quay widening (if included)

Terrace Tunnel to Te Aro (if included)

Improving the Basin

Mt Vic Tunnel and Ruahine Street

Regional highway access

Technical leadership

and review

Urban development and design

Modelling and monitoring

Programme Coordination and Delivery Sequencing, system transformation, system performance, business case integration and benefits realisation

Communications and engagement

Mass Transit / Public

Transport system

Regional highway access

Re-configure

urban corridors

Managing travel

demand

Early delivery



17.3. Programme Monitoring and Reviews

There are several reasons for a robust monitoring plan14 that is updated as LGWM progresses. A

monitoring plan can be used:

As a basis for post implementation tracking of success, which can importantly generate

lessons for other projects

To create awareness of potential effects of the programme that may be influenced

To inform trigger points and decisions during programme implementation

As a basis for other investment and management decisions, such as enabling the DTST to

affect behaviour change through temporary interventions.

Several measures are suggested for monitoring in addition to the programme KPIs as part of the

monitoring plan shown in Appendix M. It is worth noting that these measures will need refinement

moving forward, particularly as more detailed investigation improves understanding of forecast

impacts.

17.3.1. Measures Identified

Measures that are identified for annual monitoring to keep awareness of unintended outcomes

include:

Transport CO2 Emissions in Central City

System Occupancy (including movement into the central city, mode split, and vehicle

occupancy)

Pedestrian signalised crossing delays on key routes

Network catchment (average travel times) and travel time reliability on key routes

Total deaths and serious injuries, and pedestrian and cyclist representation, in a local,

regional, and national context

Expand the temporal scope of the cordon survey to improve understanding of movement for

non-commuting purposes

Traffic Noise on streets identified for high pedestrian amenity, potentially predictive through

use of the NZ Transport Agency traffic noise calculator

Economist Intelligence Unit Global Liveability Survey – particularly scoring of Quality of Road

Network and Quality of Public Transport – to help understand consequences on larger picture

perception

Air quality and concentration of non-CO2 emissions – particulates, NO2

Lane availability reductions due to unplanned events (potentially expand the geographic

scope beyond the State Highway to record some of the key local arterials

Measures that are identified for annual monitoring to inform implementation and sequencing

decisions include:


occupancy)


14

Note that monitoring referred to in this section is separate from monitoring that is planned and undertaken under the Resource Management Act and consenting processes.



Growth in population and employment

Qualitative understanding of market demand for higher density housing within the city,

underpinned by quantitative monitoring of residential completions by type, development

trends, and housing affordability already undertaken by WCC.

Measures that are identified for post implementation monitoring include:

Amenity Index on key corridors

Transport CO2 Emissions in Central City


occupancy)

Pedestrian signalised crossing delays on key routes

Cycling level of service on key routes


Pedestrian and cyclist deaths and serious injuries

Qualitative assessment of resilience to large scale hazard events.

Some other specific uses of measures include:

Continually update the resilience measure as part of the investigation and detailed design

processes. Assess how any interventions performed following any large events that occur

Use the cycling level of service assessment and amenity assessment as a tool to help guide

design considerations.

17.3.2. Next Steps and Ownership

It is suggested that the LGWM delivery vehicle is charged, not only with delivering the programme,

but also undertaking programme monitoring with support from the partner agencies.

Most of the detailed monitoring will be undertaken as part of existing commitments by the LGWM

partner agencies. New monitoring systems will need to be established for:

Potential adjustments to the existing WCC cordon counts, particularly expanding hours of

operation to include weekend and shoulder peak periods

Lane availability monitoring for identified key local roads to supplement State Highway 1

reporting – to be established as part of early improvements or transition to integrated

transport operating system business cases.

Business case phases subsequent to this PBC will need to integrate monitoring at a programme-

element level with programme-wide monitoring and ensure appropriate targets and means of

monitoring are put in place. As detailed understanding of programme elements is developed through

these business cases, there may also be a need to update the programme-level outcome targets.



17.4. Programme Funding

As mentioned in Section 16.1.1 the Minister of Transport has expressed an intention for how the

programme might be funded and financed. This high-level funding still requires agreement from WCC,

GWRC, and the NZ Transport Agency.

In addition, there is a need to understand and agree how funding splits might vary between different

programme elements, between different programme stages, and reflect the different funding sources

and funding nature for the three programme partners. This work is currently ongoing.

17.5. Risks and Uncertainties

The key risks identified at this stage of the programme’s development are summarised in Table 27

below.

Table 27 Risks, potential consequences, and management strategy

RISK TYPE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The growth in regional population and employment may be lower or higher than forecast

The distribution of growth between the central city and the rest of the region may be different to that forecast

As the growth forecasts are the key drivers of transport demand, the need for changes to the transport system may be less urgent or more urgent than currently forecast

A wide range of growth forecasts is being assumed so as to ensure there is a high probability that the actual growth will be within the range


The modal preferences of customers may be changing due to economic, social or technological changes

The transport modelling carried out to date may be over-estimating or under-estimating the demand for travel by private vehicles in relation to travel by other modes


Funding priorities of central and local government may change over time

The RPI may not reflect funding priorities, and the programme may not deliver anticipated benefits if only partially implemented

The RPI has been developed to be flexible to funding priorities


The RPI will draw substantial funding from a number of sources, and some of these may not eventuate e.g. economic downturn

Parts of the RPI may not receive funding, and the programme may not deliver anticipated benefits if only partially implemented


The RPI has been developed to be flexible to funding availability

Major infrastructure elements within the programme will have long lead times for planning and consenting processes

Wellington City may fall behind other competitor cities as a result of the transport system not addressing the problems or facilitating the opportunities in a timely manner

Using a programme business case in which all agencies are well coordinated should speed up any pre-construction phases and reduce the overall time needed to implement the investment programme




Forecasting for large scale natural hazard events is an uncertain process

Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be insufficient to facilitate timely recovery following a larger than anticipated event

Investment in transport system resilience may prove to be unnecessary if an event does not occur

Align with ongoing resiliency planning within the region, including exploring appetite for risk

The RPI assumes complementary land use planning changes e.g. district plan changes which may not eventuate

The opportunity to leverage investment in the transport system to facilitate urban development will be lost

The RPI may not represent a value for money investment if it does not facilitate urban generation in the central city and Newtown

Decision points prior to implementation of major infrastructure that will reflect monitoring of land use policy


Risk that investment will not be integrated with shift in transport system from technological advances

Potential to reinforce Wellington’s technological and innovative reputation is lost

Introducing unproven systems may result in sub-optimal outcomes or abortive investment

Staying flexible in reviewing the programme to incorporate changing technologies when they are judged to be sufficiently mature

A lack of integrated implementation e.g. resulting from opposition to potential intervention impacts

Key elements of the programme may be put on hold, undermining the effectiveness of the programme as a whole


Ongoing engagement and consultation with the public and stakeholders

Resource and/or funding constraints may result in programme elements being delayed/deferred

Delaying elements of the programme may make it difficult or impossible to satisfactorily manage disruption to the transport system during construction phases (e.g. closure of lanes to allow mass transit infrastructure construction)

High priority given to maintaining transport system performance through early design of transport system transformation programme element

There may be pressures to change the balance of central and local government funding arrangements over the implementation of the RPI

Key elements of the programme may not be implemented, undermining the effectiveness of the programme as a whole

Build a high level of support for the programme at local, regional and central government levels

Significant cost of RPI may preclude other transport investments in region

The Wellington region has a limited ability to invest in transport projects outside of LGWM

The RPI has been developed to be flexible to changing transport demand

In announcing LGWM the Minister of Transport has also indicated that there are available funds for other projects in the region.

Actual project costs become greater than those forecast and exceed allocated budgets

Several risks could cause project costs to escalate in unforeseen/unaccounted for ways e.g. complex geotechnical conditions

Undertake robust risk identification as part of cost estimation during business case phases

Use of risk adjusted forecasting as part of budgeting processes

PART C – Preferred Way Forward: Commercial Case


18. COMMERCIAL CASE Given the scale of LGWM, consideration of commercial implications will be critical as the programme

moves closer to implementation.

The capacity and capability of industry, both professional services and physical works contractors, will

be a significant consideration. There may be a need to take a national and potentially international

view as business case development progresses. One example would be opportunities to align with

other mass transit projects around New Zealand, potentially creating physical works and cash-flow

efficiencies through national coordination.

In the more immediate term, there are several risks associated with professional services availability

and potential for stakeholder fatigue that may result in a need to stagger business case processes

with suitable hold points so that interdependencies can be understood.

There are several procurement and financing opportunities presented by the programme. For

example, a procurement approach for mass transit may be to adopt an outcome based public private

partnership arrangement whereby different tenderers offer different mass transit modes.


APPENDIX A – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT


APPENDIX B – INVESTMENT LOGIC MAP


APPENDIX C – INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE KPIS AND RPI ASSESSMENT


APPENDIX D – NOTE 1: INTERVENTION LONGLIST SCREEN


APPENDIX E – NOTE 2: SCENARIO LONGLIST DEVELOPMENT


APPENDIX F – LONGLIST SCENARIOS MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS REPORT


APPENDIX G – ENGAGEMENT SCENARIOS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT


APPENDIX H – LONGLIST PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP NOTES


APPENDIX I – SHORTLIST PROGRAMME OPTIONS WORKSHOP NOTES


APPENDIX J – COST REPORT


APPENDIX K – ECONOMICS REPORT


APPENDIX L – INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT


APPENDIX M – MONITORING PLAN


APPENDIX N – TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS

Programme Business Case Report - getwellymoving.co.nz€¦ · processes. This programme business case has not been approved by the NZ Transport Agency, the Wellington City Council,

Documents