Our performance in detail

7
Waka
Transport

This chapter profiles our strategic approach, challenges and what we delivered in the transport area, which includes transport and parking.

Snapshot of the city

Snapshot

7 Waka
Transport Top

Introduction

We manage, maintain and improve the city’s transport network so that people can access places easily and safely. We look after hundreds of kilometres of city accessways, footpaths, cycleways and roads, including parking facilities, traffic signs and signals, street lighting and pedestrian crossings.

Our strategic approach is to invest in a high-quality and resilient transport network that helps reduce congestion and pollution, makes commuting easier, and encourages active and public modes of transport.

One of the biggest challenges we currently face is to make sure our transport network can cater to Wellington’s rapidly growing population. Managing morning and evening peak demand and encouraging a greater take-up of active and public transport modes that are healthier and more sustainable.

A significant highlight was the public engagement on Let’s Get Wellington Moving. This is our joined-up approach to delivering better city outcomes through a modern integrated transport network for Wellington with partners Greater Wellington Regional Council and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA). Progress was also made on the cycleways programme and we installed 6000 LED street lights out of a total of 14,500 older lights.

Transport performance story:

More commuter unhappiness, but transport plans under way

As Wellington’s population grows, so do congestion issues. Resident satisfaction with traffic volumes and convenience of public transport services declined slightly. The numbers of residents who agreed that peak traffic volumes are acceptable fell 4 percent to 38 percent, and residents who agreed on the quality and affordability of public transport services was also down 4 percent to 68 percent.

As part of Our 10-Year Plan 2018-28, the Council identified transport as one of the top five priority areas for the next decade. Residents were consulted on four transport scenarios as part of Let’s Get Wellington Moving and solutions are being actively developed for delivery over the next years.

Source: Statistics NZ, Wellington City Council Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2018

Not met or decreased

38%

Residents (%) who agree that peak traffic volumes are acceptable

42% in 2016/17

 
Not met or decreased

68%

Residents (%) who agree that public transport services are convenient and affordable

72% in 2016/17

 
Not met or decreased

31%

Residents (%) who agree the transport system allows easy movement around the city

37% in 2016/17



Positive Result

55%

 

Residents (%) who perceive there to be transport-related safety issues (issues of most concern)

Residents (%) concerned with poorly lit or dark public areas

59% in 2016/17

 
Positive Result

100%

Target 100%

Street lighting (%) for major roads (arterial, principal and collector roads) meets national standards

97% in 2016/17

 
Within 5% or no change

7%

Target 10%

Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced. Target not met but improved from last year

6% in 2016/17

7.1 Waka TransportTop

Transport performance story:

More commuter unhappiness, but transport plans under way

As Wellington’s population grows, so do congestion issues. Resident satisfaction with traffic volumes and convenience of public transport services declined slightly. The numbers of residents who agreed that peak traffic volumes are acceptable fell 4 percent to 38 percent, and residents who agreed on the quality and affordability of public transport services was also down 4 percent to 68 percent.

As part of Our 10-Year Plan 2018-28, the Council identified transport as one of the top five priority areas for the next decade. Residents were consulted on four transport scenarios as part of Let’s Get Wellington Moving and solutions are being actively developed for delivery over the next years.

Source: Statistics NZ, Wellington City Council Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2018

What we did:

A range of smaller low-cost projects have been implemented in the city centre along with a rollout of bike stands, fix-it stands and permanent cycle counters. Following extensive community engagement, the Council agreed to a redesign of The Parade in Island Bay. Detailed design is under way.

Not met or decreased

38%

Residents (%) who agree that peak traffic volumes are acceptable

42% in 2016/17

 
Not met or decreased

68%

Residents (%) who agree that public transport services are convenient and affordable

72% in 2016/17

 
Not met or decreased

31%

Residents (%) who agree the transport system allows easy movement around the city

37% in 2016/17

Positive Result

55%

Residents (%) who perceive there to be transport-related safety issues (issues of most concern)

Residents (%) concerned with poorly lit or dark public areas

59% in 2016/17

 
Positive Result

100%

Target 100%

Street lighting (%) for major roads (arterial, principal and collector roads) meets national standards

97% in 2016/17

 
Within 5% or no change

7%

Target 10%

Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced. Target not met but improved from last year

6% in 2016/17

7.2 Tūnga waka ParkingTop

Parking:

Parking enforcement fairer, residents say

The introduction of parking sensors has allowed for more accurate measurements of occupancy of parking spaces. Parking officers now have access to live data on vehicle arrival and departure times. What this also means is that previous years’ values are not comparable and targets will have to be reset. The new sensors may in part explain why the number of residents who agree that parking enforcement is fair has increased 6 percent to 53 percent.

What we did:

Transport financesTop

How it was funded

Services in this activity area are funded through a mixture of general rates, fees and charges and grants and subsidies received from NZTA for transport related activities.

What it cost (operating expenditure $000)
  2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
  2017/18
Actual
2017/18
Budget
2017/18
Variance
7.1 Transport
             
Expenditure 46,628 49,859   55,186 52,674 (2,512)1
Revenue (10,329) (9,706)   (9,974) (6,571) 3,4032
Net Expenditure 36,299 40,152   45,212 46,103 891
7.2 Parking
             
Expenditure 12,262 12,542   14,294 13,844 (450)
Revenue (26,442) (26,858)   (26,992) (28,719) (1,727)3
Net Revenue (14,180) (14,316)   (12,698) (14,875) (2,176)
Transport total
             
Expenditure 58,890 62,401   69,480 66,518 (2,962)
Revenue (36,771) (36,564)   (36,966) (35,290) 1,676
Net Expenditure 22,119 25,836   32,514 31,227 (1,286)
             

Variance explanations

1 Higher storm clean up costs and depreciation expenditure than budgeted

2 Additional revenue from bus shelter signage, bus priority planning and NZTA funding, along with unbudgeted vested assets

3 Parking meter revenue lower than budgeted

What it cost (capital expenditure $000)
  2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
  2017/18
Actual
Brought forward from prior year 2017/18
Budget
2017/18
Variance
7.1 Transport
               
Expenditure 35,192 33,837   55,166 2,621 59,950 7,4051
7.2 Parking
               
Expenditure 1,342 481   299 2 297 1
Transport total
               
Expenditure 36,534 34,318   55,465 2,624 60,247 7,406
               

Variance explanations

1 Under budget due to timing of work undertaken for the cycling programme and the completion of the LED street light transition project which will be completed in 2018/19

Transport performanceTop

The following section outlines our performance data: outcome indicators, performance measures and supplementary tables.

We use outcome indicators to monitor our city over time, which provides information on trends that may influence our performance including those outside our control.

We use performance measures to track how well we are delivering services against targets as set out in the 10-year and annual plans.

The Council undertakes the Residents’ Monitoring Survey (RMS) on an annual basis. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Performance summary

The following table is a summary of how well we performed against our agreed outcome indicators and key performance measures for this activity area.

    Outcome indicator trends KPI compared to target KPI compared to last year

 
Positive Result Positive result 3 7 5

 
Within 5% or no change Within 5% or no change 5 3 9

 
Not met or decreased Not met or decreased 5 5 1

 
Not measured or not comparable Not measured or not comparable  - 2 2

 

Performance data – outcome indicators

The following section outlines outcome indicators for the Transport activity area. Outcome indicators do not have targets – only trend data.

Council outcome indicator Source   2015/16 2016/17   2017/18  
Residents (%) who agree that peak traffic volumes are acceptable WCC RMS 2018   43% 42%   38% Not met or decreased
Residents (%) who agree that the transport system allows easy access to the city WCC RMS 2018   63% 62%   64% Within 5% or no change
Residents (%) who agree that public transport services are convenient and affordable WCC RMS 2018  Convenient 69% 72%   68% Not met or decreased
    Affordable 41% 45%   45% Within 5% or no change
Air quality monitoring (i.e. nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter peaks, downward trend is favourable) Greater Wellington Regional Council – 2017 report See supplementary tables       Zero days in excess of monitoring guidelines Within 5% or no change
Change from previous year in the number of road crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injury. (2017/18 = YTD result for 7 months up to July, downward trend is favourable) WCC City Networks  Calendar year Up 15
Total 64
Up 16
Total 80
  YTD (7mths)down 51
Total 29
Not met or decreased
The outcome has been trending unfavourably since 2015 which had a total of 49 crashes reported. The year to date figure for 2018 of 29 is favourable compared to 45 for the same period last year.  
               
Social cost of crashes. (2017/18 = YTD result for 7 months up to July, downward trend is favourable) WCC City Networks Calendar year $109m $124.7m   YTD (7mths) $48m Not met or decreased
The outcome has been trending unfavourably since 2015 which had a total cost of $95m reported. The year to date figure for 2018 of $48m is favourable compared to $67m for the same period last year.  
               
Residents (%) who perceive there to be transport-related safety issues (i.e. issues of most concern, downward trend is favourable) WCC RMS 2018 See supplementary tables
Improvement for poorly lit or dark public areas
63% 59%   55% Positive Result 
Number of cyclists and pedestrians entering the Central Business District (average weekday*) WCC Transport – Cycle Cordon Survey Cyclists 1,924 1,846   1,914 Positive Result
  WCC Transport – Pedestrian Cordon Survey Pedestrians 11,024 10,226   10,952 Positive Result
* these measures were reported in previous Annual Reports as “weekdays” being the total for one week" rather than “average per weekday”.  
               
Residents (%) who agree the transport system allows easy movement around the city – vehicle users and pedestrians WCC RMS 2018  Vehicle users 45% 45%   43% Within 5% or no change
    Bike users new 37%   31% Not met or decreased
    Pedestrians 91% 93%   93% Within 5% or no change

Performance data – Council performance measures

The following section outlines Council performance measures for our Transport services. It includes data for the last 3 years to show trends, and includes variances explanations for relevant areas.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES    2015/16 2016/17   2017/18 Actual 2017/18 Target % Variance  
7.1 Transport
To measure the quality and timeliness of the transport infrastructure and service
Residents (%) who rate the road and footpath network good or very good Roads 66% 65%   73% 75% -3% Within 5% or no change
  Footpaths 67% 67%   72% 75% -4% Within 5% or no change
Requests for service response rate – urgent (within 2 hours) and non-urgent (within 15 days) Urgent 96% 89%   89%* 100% -11% Not met or decreased
  Non-urgent 98% 94%   94%* 100% -6% Not met or decreased
During the year a change was made to the methodology to calculate the result. This means there is now a wider gap to achieve target.
                 
Roads (%) that meet smooth roads standards (smooth roads – measured by Smooth Travel Exposure based on NAASRA counts) DIA 75% 74%   74% 70% 6% Positive Result
Footpath (%) condition rating (measured against the Council condition standards) DIA 97% 96%   98% 97% 1% Positive Result
Street lighting (%) for major roads (arterial, principal and collector roads) meets national standards   97% 97%   100% 100% 0% Positive Result
Residents (%) who are satisfied with street lighting Central city 78% 81%   84% 85% -1% Within 5% or no change
  Suburban area 54% 60%   62% 75% -17% Not met or decreased
We continue to balance immediate demands for funding and/or resources to address failure of lights, and our commitment to renewing old technology with LED lights.
                 
Sea wall and retaining wall condition rating – walls (%) rated 3 or better (1 very good, 5 very bad)   91% 93%   81% 90% -10% Not met or decreased
Targets were based on information that has since been updated. The 2017/18 rating measure is a better reflection of the situation.
                 
Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced DIA 9% 6%   7% 10% -30% Not met or decreased
There was a greater emphasis than usual on higher quality seals, and waterproofing seals related to asphalt, both of which are costly.
                 
PERFORMANCE MEASURES   2015/16 2016/17   2017/18 Actual 2017/18 Target % Variance  
7.2 Parking
To measure the quality of our parking provision
On-street car park turnover rates Weekdays 6.1 6.1   7.3 6.8 7% Positive Result
  Weekends 4.7 4.9   6.2 5.3 18% Positive Result
Parking turnover is the rate of use of a parking space. It is calculated as the number of vehicles parked in a space over the course of the day. For the last 3 years the turnover rate has not met the target of 5.3. In 2017/18 it has now exceeded target, which is consistent with our aim of increasing turnover.
                 
                 
On-street car park average occupancy   78%* 83%*   68% weekends 58% weekday 75% NA Not measured or not comparable
With the introduction of parking sensors, data sampling has allowed a more accurate measurement of occupancy. Previous years' values are non-comparable and targets will be reset at Annual Plan.
                 
On-street car park compliance – time restrictions and payment Time       96% 95% 1% Positive Result
  Payment       NA 90% NA Not measured or not comparable
With the introduction of parking sensors, parking officers have access to live data on vehicle arrival and departure times. This allows for more efficient enforcement. Work is under way to integrate payment methods with the Council’s pay by space system. This will enable accurate reporting on payment compliance in future.
                 
Residents (%) who perceive parking enforcement to be fair - Increase from previous year   48% 50%   53% Increase 6% Positive Result 
Performance data – supplementary tables


Air quality monitoring (ie nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter peaks)   2014 2015 2016 2017
Data result for NO2 and CO is 1-hour average
NO2 (µg/m3) max 86.6 66 61.5 67.9
NES-AQ threshold <200 mean 19.7 N/A 14 14.1
CO (mg/m3) max 1.5 1 1.78 1.49
NES-AQ threshold <10 mean 0.4 N/A 0.22 0.19
Particulate matter (PM10) (µg/m3) max 32 32 26 25
NES-AQ threshold <50 mean 13 N/A 11.3 11.3

Source: Greater Wellington Regional Council, Air quality monitoring programme annual data report 2017(2018 report at available at time of publication)

We use air quality standards and guidelines sourced from Greater Wellington Regional Council’s - Air quality monitoring programme annual data report 2017. Thresholds are set to monitor quality against each of the indicators for example nitrogen dioxide. These thresholds are included in the data result table above and for further information refer to air quality standards and guidelines below.

Indicator Standard or Guideline Threshold concentration Averaging period Permissible exceedances per year
PM10 NES-AQ 50 μg/m3 24-hour 1
NAAQG 20 μg/m3 Annual NA
PM2.5 WHO Guideline 25 μg/m3 24-hour 3
WHO Guideline 10 μg/m3 Annual NA
Carbon monoxide (CO) NES-AQ 10 μg/m3 8-hour moving 6
NAAQG 30 μg/m3 1-hour 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NES-AQ 200 μg/m3 1-hour 9
NAAQG 100 μg/m3 24-hour 0
WHO Guideline 40 μg/m3 Annual NA
 
Residents' perceptions of transport related safety issues (ie issues of particular concern) 2015 2016 2017   2018
Traffic or busy roads 34% 33% 33%   36%
Car theft or vandalism 36% 32% 29%   27%
Poorly lit or dark public areas 61% 63% 59%   55%
Dangerous driving 29% 30% 33%   33%

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2018


Case study Let’s Get Wellington MovingTop

Lucie Desrosiers is part of a multi-agency team that is working hard on improving Wellington’s transport. Let’s Get Wellington Moving, a joint initiative between the Council, the NZ Transport Agency and Greater Wellington Regional Council, aims to prepare for future growth while building on what makes Wellington a great place to be.

“We want to make the most of the city’s qualities. For example, Wellington is a compact, walkable city. So we want to enhance those attributes. We’re setting the bar really high,” says Lucie, who grew up in Quebec and has a background in urban design and architecture. After completing her studies, she worked in Singapore and London before settling in Wellington 10 years ago.

“The idea of Let’s Get Wellington Moving is to develop a programme that supports sustainable development with a transport system that moves more people with fewer vehicles.”

Let’s Get Wellington Moving’s main focus is on the area between Ngauranga and Wellington Airport, including the urban motorway and connections to the central city, hospital, and eastern and southern suburbs in order to deliver city and regional benefits. The partnered approach is one of its greatest strengths.

“We have staff and resources from the three organisations coming together. This is a much more collaborative way of planning than ever before,” Lucie says.

There has been extensive public engagement. In November and December 2017, LGWM sought feedback on four scenarios for Wellington’s future. The feedback is helping to shape a recommended programme of investment, which will lay out transport and urban development changes over the next decade or more.

A sustainable transport network is one that provides more travel choice, and encourages walking, cycling and public transport, while ensuring better access for people to get to important destinations such as the hospital and airport. Let’s Get Wellington Moving is also about delivering a network that is accessible to all, with attractive spaces, shared streets and efficient local and regional journeys.

“We’re now looking at the whole picture,” Lucie says. “What we call place-making has become a core component of transport planning – to contribute to great cities and good places for people to work, live and play.”