Transport

7.1 Transport

Waka

We manage the transport network so it is sustainable, safe and efficient

What we do

Transport planning

Vehicle network

Pedestrian and cycle network

Passenger transport network

Network-wide control

Road safety

Car parking

Our transport activities contribute towards us beingTop

People-centred –They provide people with accessible and safe transport choices, from their homes to shops, for work, recreation and pleasure, including walkways and bikeways.

Connected – They provide a fit-for-purpose transport network and accessible and safe transport choices that connect people with each other and with places locally, nationally and internationally, including for commerce and trade.

Eco-city – They reflect a commitment to sustainable, safe and efficient transport choices including, walking and biking.

Dynamic central city – They provide for easy and affordable movement to and around the central city, especially by walking. They link people with places, events and activities and with commerce, business and trade.

The Council has established a ‘Wellington One Network’ partnership with the NZTA for managing the transport network to create a joint approach within the combined jurisdiction.

Key projectsTop

During the year:

Pedestrian and cycle network

Road safety community programmes

To assist in the planning and delivery of our road safety community programmes we engage with the Council’s Safe and Sustainable Reference Group. This group is made up of the members of the road safety action plan group (NZTA, NZ Police, Accident Compensation Corporation and Greater Wellington Regional Council) and members from the Automobile Association, Bikers Rights Organisation New Zealand, Regional Public Health, Cycle Aware Wellington, Living Streets Aotearoa, as well as representatives of the Council's Accessibility Advisory Group and Youth Council.

Road safety

We are working with schools to foster engineered solutions to support road safety education programmes. During the year 25 schools have committed to working with the Council to improve road safety for school children with an additional four schools showing an interest in a more formal commitment.

What it costsTop

Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2013
Budget
2013
Variance
2013
Actual
2012
7.1.1 Transport Planning1        
Expenditure 400 567 167 871
Revenue (70) (96) (26) (192)
Net Expenditure 330 471 141 679
7.1.2 Vehicle Network2        
Expenditure 20,784 21,234 450 19,694
Revenue (4,967) (1,120) 3,847 (1,284)
Net Expenditure 15,817 20,114 4,297 18,410
7.1.3 Cycle Network        
Expenditure 313 309 (4) 135
Revenue (18) (3) 15 (1)
Net Expenditure 295 306 11 134
7.1.4 Passenger Transport Network3        
Expenditure 1,309 1,563 254 1,397
Revenue (974) (1,040) (66) (984)
Net Expenditure 335 523 188 413
7.1.5 Pedestrian Network4        
Expenditure 6,032 6,125 93 5,760
Revenue (139) (38) 101 (34)
Net Expenditure 5,893 6,087 194 5,726
7.1.6 Network-wide Control and Management5        
Expenditure 5,763 6,232 469 5,903
Revenue (1,545) (1,869) (324) (1,748)
Net Expenditure 4,218 4,363 145 4,155
7.1.7 Road Safety        
Expenditure 5,410 5,673 263 5,391
Revenue (1,245) (1,570) (325) (1,548)
Net Expenditure 4,165 4,103 (62) 3,843
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2013
Budget
2013
Variance
2013
Actual
2012
7.1.2 Vehicle Network6        
Expenditure 27,675 26,863 (812) 24,459
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A 1,465   N/A
7.1.3 Cycle Network7        
Expenditure 1,353 1,353 1,127
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A 190   N/A
7.1.4 Passenger Transport Network        
Expenditure 1,033 1,013 (20) 558
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A   N/A
7.1.5 Pedestrian Network8        
Expenditure 4,674 4,811 137 4,940
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A   N/A
7.1.6 Network-wide Control and Management        
Expenditure 2,529 2,519 (10) 2,324
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A   N/A
7.1.7 Road Safety        
Expenditure 2,542 2,517 (25) 2,542
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward N/A   N/A
  1. Under budget due to lower labour costs.
  2. Under budget due to the recognition of unbudgeted vested asset income.
  3. Under budget due to lower reactive maintenance, cleaning requirement and lower interest costs.
  4. Under budget due to the recognition of unbudgeted vested asset income and lower depreciation costs.
  5. Under budget due to lower labour and depreciation costs than budgeted.
  6. Under budget due to delays in the purchasing process in relation to Aotea Quay land acquisition, as well as delays in the Karori Road wall replacement as a result of additional consultation with the public on artistic features. The Westchester Drive project came in over budget as a result of time delays and costs relating to structural variations requirements.
  7. Under budget due to delays in the Tawa cycleway upgrade project, as a result of negotiations with KiwiRail in relation to access to complete the Linden Park bridge taking longer than anticipated.
  8. Under budget due to lower labour costs requirements than budgeted.

How we performedTop

We want to ensure Wellington’s transport network is sustainable, safe and efficient. We assess efficiency and sustainability by measuring the proportion of residents who walk, cycle or use buses for transport; and by measuring resident satisfaction with the city as a place to move around on foot and in cars. We also assess performance by recording the rate of road casualties occurring and by measuring: residents’ satisfaction with our transport infrastructure/services, performance against international standards, service provision, and asset condition and peak travel times.

To measure the efficient movement of people and goods

Residents’ (%) agreement that the transport system allows easy movement around the city – vehicle users and pedestrians

Residents’ (%) agreement that the transport system allows easy movement around the city – vehicle users and pedestrians.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Peak travel times between CBD and suburbs

Location Peak travel time range (minutes)
  2007/
08
2008/
09
2009/
10
2010/
11
2011/
12
2012/
13
Miramar 7.5–24.5 8.0–28.0 8.5–19.0 9.0–19.0 8.0–20.0 10.0–15.0
Karori 9.0–22.0 8.5–22.0 8.0–23.0 8.0–20.0 8.5–27.0 9.0–24.0
Island Bay 7.5–14.5 8.0–16.5 8.0–16.5 8.0–16.0 7.0–14.0 8.0–21.0
Johnsonville 7.0–16.0 7.0–21.0 6.5–22.0 7.0–24.0 7.0–28.0 7.0–26.0

Target is to maintain or improve on these times.

Source: WCC Infrastructure

To measure the movement towards more sustainable transport options

Mode of transport into the central city (weekdays)

Mode of transport into the central city (weekdays).

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Cyclists and pedestrians entering the CBD weekdays

Result: 862 cyclists (target: 864); 5480 pedestrians (target: 5237).

Source: WCC Infrastructure

Primary school children (%) who walk to and from school daily

Primary school children (%) who walk to and from school daily.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

There is no known explanation for this drop in result beyond the potential impact from the change in survey methodology and the timing of the survey (June of this year as opposed to January and May in previous years). In terms of the change in methodology, there is a documented tendency for people to respond more positively to some questions when they are asked by a person on the telephone, as opposed to completing a survey online. In some cases, it has been shown that people respond more favourably over the phone when answering questions about something which is considered socially desirable, such as 'children walking to school'. This may account for some of the shift in the result reported here. Given the potential impact of the change in methodology on some results, we will be reviewing our performance targets in some areas.

Cable car passenger numbers

Result 1,060,458 passengers (target: 1,073,700); 2011/12: 1,067,634.

Source: Wellington Cable Car Ltd

To measure the standard of transport infrastructure and service

Residents’ (%) condition rating of the network – roads and footpaths (good and very good)

Residents’ (%) condition rating of the network – roads and footpaths (good and very good).

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Requests for service

Result: we responded to 97% of urgent requests for service within two hours (target: 100%); 2011.12: 97%; 2010/11: 100%) and 96% of non-urgent request for service within 15 days (target: 100%; 2011/12: 97%; 2010/11: 100%).

During the year we had approximately 22,000 requests for service across the roading and transport network. These requests are prioritised according to the risk to the public or property with urgent tasks responded to within two hours.

During the year we processed approximately 550 requests relating to footpath and accessway maintenance and 220 requests for maintenance to kerb and channel assets – all of which were responded to within 15 working days.

Roads (%) which meet smooth roads standards (smooth roads – measured by Smooth Travel Exposure based on NAASRA counts)

Roads (%) which meet smooth roads standards (smooth roads – measured by Smooth Travel Exposure based on NAASRA counts).

Road smoothness is assessed using criteria from the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA). The above figures include smoothness ratings for both rural and urban roads within Wellington City.

Source: WCC Infrastructure

Footpath condition rating – % compliant with Council standards

Result: 92% (target: 97%; 2011/12: 97%; 2010/11: 97%)

Source: WCC Infrastructure

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

Result: 93% of lights comply (target: 100%; 2011/12: 94%; 2010/11: 93%).

Source: WCC Infrastructure

Residents’ (%) satisfaction with street lighting in the central city and suburban areas

Residents’ (%) satisfaction with street lighting in the central city and suburban areas.

Analysis of the survey results will be undertaken to assess why there was such a drop in satisfaction. By grouping respondents by location we will assess if there have been any significant outages or faults that could contribute to this drop in satisfaction.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

User satisfaction (%) with the safety and maintenance of cycleways

User satisfaction (%) with the safety and maintenance of cycle ways.

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Our target for satisfaction with cycleway maintenance was reduced slightly in the 2012-22 Long-term Plan to reflect the 2011 baseline result of 60%.

Residents (%) who agree that Council transport network services provide good value for money

Result: 65% of residents agree the Council transport network provides good value for money (target: 75%; 2011/12: 66%; 2010/11: 70%)

Source: WCC Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2013

Sea wall and retaining wall condition rating – walls (%) rated 3 or better (1 very good, 5 very bad)

Result: 91% of walls are rated 3 or better – 1 being very good and 5 very bad (target: 90%; 2011/12: 95%).

Source: WCC Infrastructure

Quarry

Result: achieved (target: to meet legislative compliance).

Source: WCC Infrastructure

To measure progress towards increasing transport safety

Road casualties (per 10,000 population):

  Targets: Maintain or reduce
  2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Vehicles 55.6 47.2 29.2 26.3
Pedestrians 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.3
Cyclists 3.4 3.3 2.3 3.3

Note: results are based on road casualties on Wellington City Council roads – not the region. Next year the data will focus on the number of crashes rather than the number of casualties resulting from a singular crash.

Source: NZ Transport Agency