Our performance in detail

7
Waka
Transport

Connecting people and places

The challenges we face

  • Reducing congestion at peak times to improve travel times to and across the city
  • Increasing uptake of alternative transport modes to private motor vehicles that are healthier, and more sustainable
  • A lack of land to develop transport networks to meet increased demand and modal changes
  • Finding effective ways of engaging communities about transport choices for suburbs and the city

Our strategic approach

  • Ensuring the transport network works as efficiently as possible
  • Encouraging more sustainable and cost-effective transport options such as walking, cycling and public transport
  • Maintaining, developing and improving infrastructure to support different forms of transport – for example cycleways, footpaths and bus routes

In this section
​   
​   

7.1 Transport

7.2 Parking

Snapshot

7.1 Transport

What we did:

How we performed

Residents who rate the condition of the road network as good or very good (%)

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing residents who rate the condition of the road network as good or very good.

Target not met (-13%). Action is under way to reduce service delivery delays and to improve customer service training.

Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced

Source: Wellington City Council

Bar graph showing percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced.

Target not met (-41%). There were additional challenges to completing the resurfacing work programme this year due to the November 2016 events (earthquake and storms). We continue to work to deliver appropriate response times.

How we performed

Residents who are satisfied with street lighting in suburban areas (%)

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing residents who are satisfied with street lighting in suburban areas .

Target not met (-20%). However, this result has improved from last year. 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.

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

Source: Wellington City Council Residents' Monitoring Survey 2017

Bar graph showing vehicle users who agree the transport system allows easy movement around the city .

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity 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) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance*
2016/17
7.1.1 Transport planning          
Expenditure 1,309 1,412 2,074 2,651 577
Revenue (132) (153) (9) - 9
Net Expenditure 1,177 1,259 2,065 2,651 5861
7.1.2 Vehicle network         -
Expenditure 21,579 22,408 22,733 24,101 1,369
Revenue (3,594) (4,830) (4,213) (1,482) 2,731
Net Expenditure 17,985 17,578 18,520 22,619 4,1002
7.1.3 Cycle network          
Expenditure 705 1,291 2,379 1,376 (1,003)
Revenue (8) (263) (11) (47) (36)
Net Expenditure 697 1,028 2,368 1,329 (1,039)3
7.1.4 Passenger transport network          
Expenditure 1,260 2,632 2,113 2,450 337
Revenue (1,057) (922) (1,666) (856) 810
Net Expenditure 203 1,710 447 1,594 1,1474
7.1.5 Pedestrian network          
Expenditure 6,027 6,303 6,519 7,061 542
Revenue (57) (144) (48) (40) 8
Net Expenditure 5,970 6,159 6,471 7,021 5505
7.1.6 Network-wide control and management          
Expenditure 6,356 6,658 7,988 7,525 (463)
Revenue (2,057) (2,346) (2,130) (2,324) (194)
Net Expenditure 4,299 4,312 5,858 5,201 (657)6
7.1.7 Road safety          
Expenditure 6,303 5,924 6,053 6,353 300
Revenue (1,747) (1,671) (1,629) (1,654) (25)
Net Expenditure 4,556 4,253 4,424 4,699 275
7.1 Total Transport          
Expenditure 43,539 46,628 49,859 51,517 1,658
Revenue (8,652) (10,329) (9,706) (6,403) 3,303
Net Expenditure 34,887 36,299 40,152 45,114 4,961
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget in professional costs due to delays in studies and planning pending outcomes from Let’s Get Wellington Moving.
2. Under budget due to vested asset income and lower than planned depreciation.
3. Over budget due to higher than planned depreciation offset in part by delays in planning.
4. Under budget due to higher than budgeted Adshell revenues as well as higher recoveries from GWRC for Lambton Quay Bus Interchange and Bus Rapid Transit civil works
5. Under budget due to lower than planned depreciation and reductions in the programme of work that was delivered.
6. Over budget due to higher than planned depreciation offset in part by lower labour costs.

Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Actual
2016/17
7.1.2 Vehicle network          
Expenditure 29,895 22,319 20,716 21,558 2,0461
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       1,204  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       2,178  
7.1.3 Cycle network          
Expenditure 2,428 3,288 3,923 7,522 3,5992
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       3,599  
7.1.4 Passenger transport network          
Expenditure 123 368 641 888 7613
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       514  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       780  
7.1.5 Pedestrian network          
Expenditure 3,746 3,966 4,066 4,671 9144
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       309  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       150  
7.1.6 Network-wide control and management          
Expenditure 2,397 2,536 2,233 2,380 147
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       601  
7.1.7 Road safety          
Expenditure 2,803 2,715 2,258 3,538 1,2805
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       853  
7.1 Total Transport          
Expenditure 41,392 35,192 33,837 40,557 8,747
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       2,027  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years   -   8,161  
*Variance explanations to finances – why our actual spend differs from what was budgeted.
1. Under budget due to a number of the renewals programmes not being fully delivered due to contractor resourcing issues and various project delays.
2. Under budget as the cycling programme has been reprioritised and rephased across three years.
3. Under budget due to delays associated with the Lets Get Wellington Moving and Bus Rapid Transit projects.
4. Under budget due to a number of the renewals programmes not being fully delivered due to contractor resourcing issues and delays on the Queens Drive (Lyall Bay) project.
5. Under budget due to the limited availability of traffic engineering resources who were involved in other planning and design work.

7.2 ParkingTop

What we did:

Finances

How it was funded

Services in this activity area are funded through a mixture of general rates, fees and user charges.

What it cost
Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
7.2.1 Parking          
Expenditure 11,218 12,262 12,542 13,925 1,383
Revenue (25,642) (26,442) (26,858) (28,295) (1,437)
Net Revenue (14,424) (14,180) (14,316) (14,370) (54)
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
7.2.1 Parking          
Expenditure 89 1,342 481 496 75
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       60  
Unspent portion of budget to be carried forward to future years       67  
Total cost
Net Operating Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
TRANSPORT 20,463 22,119 25,836 30,744 4,907
Capital Expenditure ($000) Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Budget
2016/17
Variance
2016/17
Unspent portion of budget brought forward from prior years       2,087  
Annual Plan budget amount 2016/17       41,052  
TRANSPORT 41,481 36,534 34,318 43,139 8,821

Performance data

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 Long-term Plan and Annual Plans.

Performance data – outcome indicators

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

Council outcome indicator Source   2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Residents (%) who agree that peak traffic volumes are acceptable WCC RMS 2017   47% 43% 42%
Residents (%) who agree that the transport system allows easy access to the city WCC RMS 2017   65% 63% 62%
Residents (%) who agree that public transport services are high quality and affordable WCC RMS 2017 Convenient 69% 69% 72%
    Affordable 46% 41% 45%
Air quality monitoring (i.e. nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter peaks) Greater Wellington Regional Council See supplementary tables      
Change from previous year in the number of road crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injury. (2016/17 = YTD result) WCC City Networks   Down 11 Up 15 YTD (7 months) down 19 against 2016 total
Social cost of crashes. (2016/17 = YTD result) WCC City Networks Calendar year $96.97m $111.67m YTD (7 mths) $67m
Residents’ perceptions of transport related safety issues (i.e. issues of most concern) WCC RMS 2017 See supplementary tables      
Number of cyclists and pedestrians entering the Central Business District (weekdays) WCC Transport - Cycle Cordon Survey Cyclists 10,515 9,621 8,063
  WCC Transport - Pedestrian Cordon Survey Pedestrians 54,319 55,120 55,128
Residents (%) who agree the transport system allows easy movement around the city – vehicle users and pedestrians WCC RMS 2017 Vehicle users 51% 45% 45%
  New for 2016/17 Bike users     37%
    Pedestrians 87% 91% 93%
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   2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Target % Variance
7.1 Transport            
To measure the quality and timeliness of the transport infrastructure and service            
Residents (%) who agree the condition of the road and footpath network is good or very good Roads 66% 66% 65% 75% -13%
  Footpaths 71% 67% 67% 75% -11%
Requests for service response rate – urgent (within 2 hours) and non-urgent (within 15 days) Urgent 96% 96% 89% 100% -11%
  Non-urgent 97% 98% 94% 100% -6%
Roads (%) that meet smooth roads standards (smooth roads – measured by Smooth Travel Exposure based on NAASRA counts)   77% 75% 74% 70% 6%
Footpath (%) condition rating (measured against the Council condition standards) DIA new 97% 96% 97% -1%
Street lighting (%) for major roads (arterial, principal and collector roads) meets national standards   97% 97% 97% 100% -3%
Residents (%) who are satisfied with street lighting Central city 80% 78% 81% 85% -5%
  Suburban area 55% 54% 60% 75% -20%
We continue to balance immediate demands for funding and/or resources to address the 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% 91% 93% 90% 3%
Percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced DIA new 9% 6% 10% -41%
There were additional challenges to completing the resurfacing work programme this year due to the November 2016 events (earthquake and storms). We continue to deliver appropriate response times.      

PERFORMANCE MEASURES   2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Actual 2016/17 Target % Variance
7.2 Parking            
To measure the quality of our parking provision            
On-street car park turn-over rates Weekdays 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.8 -10%
  Weekends 4.8 4.7 4.9 5.3 -7%
As pressure on parking spaces increases we will see a lower turnover particularly during peak periods in high demand areas.            
On-street car park average occupancy   80% 78% 83% 75% 14%
This movement is considered positive in that internationally 85% is considered the ideal occupancy rate. This allows for good utilisation and reasonable expectation that a parking space can be found.            
On-street car park compliance - time restrictions and payment Time 93% reported in 13/14 N/A N/A 95% N/A
  Payment 85% reported in 13/14 N/A N/A 90% N/A
Measure is no longer collected due to the piloting and subsequent installation of parking sensors. Going forward new measure(s) will be developed relating to the parking sensors.            
Residents (%) who agree that parking enforcement is fair   50% 48% 50% Increase from previous year Met, increase of 4%
Increase from previous year. Parking Officers continue to provide ambassadorial and public education services to customers.            
Performance data – supplementary tables
Air quality monitoring (ie nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter peaks)   2014 2015 2016
Data taken for NO2 and CO was for 1 hour        
NO2 (µg/m3) max 86.6 66 61.5
  mean 19.7 N/A 14
CO (mg/m3) max 1.5 1 1.78
  mean 0.4 N/A 0.22
Particulate matter (PM10) (µg/m3) max 32 32 26
  mean 13 N/A 11.3

Source: Greater Wellington Regional Council, Air quality state of the environment monitoring programme, Annual data report 2016

Residents (%) who perceive there to be transport-related safety issues​ 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Traffic or busy roads 34% 33% 33%
Car theft or vandalism 36% 32% 29%
Poorly lit or dark public areas 61% 63% 59%
Dangerous driving 29% 30% 33%

Wellington City Council Residents’ Monitoring Survey 2017

Case study
Let’s Get Wellington MovingTop

Let’s Get Wellington Moving is a joint initiative between Wellington City Council, NZ Transport Agency, and Greater Wellington Regional Council to develop a whole-of-system approach to address transport network challenges between Ngauranga and Wellington Airport.

In the past 12 months, we’ve engaged extensively with members of the public to find out what matters to them and how they move around. We heard back from over 10,000 people. This consultation process led to the development of a set of urban design and transport principles.

Between November 2016 and March 2017 we developed and tested a range of different scenarios against programme objectives and assessment criteria. There has been ongoing stakeholder engagement to assist in the development of a short-list of scenarios for public consultation, which is planned for November 2017. Scenarios will include different combinations of interventions for public transport, roading, walking, cycling, and travel demand management.

We have also developed new transport modelling tools that will be used to support future decisions on network interventions.

As part of shorter-term successes, we installed nine new pedestrian countdown timers throughout the city centre; seven new CCTV cameras; and a new, signalised pedestrian crossing on Cable Street where it meets Oriental Parade.