From:
Alex Campbell
To:
Cc:
Natasha Hayes
9(2)
Subject:
RE: GM Do minimum - future bus provision
Date:
Friday 2 October 2020 2:44:07 PM
Attachments:
mage001.png
mage002 ng
Hi Rowan
Yes regarding Golden Mile this is why it is an issue we keep raising. As of October 25 2020 we will have peak flows of 88 buses per hour northbound (8-9am) and 81 buses per hour southbound (5-6pm). So well into the “Unstable flow
Queuing – 81-100 buses per hour” area as defined by the TRB Transit Capacity of Service Manual.
Hence the desire to see a second corridor as an early outcome of City Streets.
Funding wise we are still finalising the LTP for the next ten years. Appears we will go with a growth assumption on the basis it can be lowered after the first triennium. However still a political process to go through in coming weeks. At this
stage it is a reasonable expectation that it would be funded beyond current fleet orders.
My view on the following
•
Do we include provision for the projection of additional PVR in the Do Minimum (noting these are unfunded by likely to be funded)
yes
•
Do we assume all additional peak trips continue to be provided on the GM?
Harder question. Given no confirmed plan to introduce the second bus corridor then they would have to be accommodated on the Golden Mile. Noting that this is part of the case for why a second corridor is required.
MRT is intended to reduce the volume of buses required on the Golden Mile however the number of buses reduced has not yet been confirmed as is subject to what final MRT proposal is adopted (1 spine dual spine airport verses
peninsula etc)
1982
I have included Natasha in this replay in case she has any thoughts regarding how we should deal with the second corridor.
Alex
From: 9(2)(a)
Sent:
Act
Friday 2 October 2020 1 46 PM
To: Alex Campbell <[email address]>
Subject: RE GM Do minimum - future bus provision
Thanks for this, very useful.
One question (I suspect the elephant in the room with respect to the Golden Mile) – if I’m reading the PVR projections correct – it looks like something in the order of an increase of 130 in PVR by 31-32. This is volume is likely to significantly impact all
options for GM improvements, given the constraints around Manners/Willis.
Beyond the 25 vehicles procured up to July 2022, the additional PVR is unfunded, but I would assume there is a reasonable expectation that additional funding will be made available to deal w th growth as time progresses.
With regard to the MCA on the GM, we are considering a design year of 2036 (or thereabouts) as the design year for comparison purposes – this points to the following questions
Do we include provision for the projection of additional PVR in the Do Minimum (noting these are unfunded by likely to be funded)
Do we assume all additional peak trips continue to be provided on the GM?
Which ever assumptions we apply, it is important that we are transparent and consistent in the application. If we assume all additional services must be accommodated on the GM, it may impact the MCA in that under the volume increases all options
are likely to exhibit some form over capacity issue. If we assume an alternate route is proposes, we need to be clear about this assumption and also ensure this assumption is incorporated in related projects (such as MRT).
What are your views?
Regards
9(2)
Information
From: Alex Campbell <[email address]>
Sent: Friday October 2 2020 11 59 AM
To: 9(2)(a)
Subject: RE GM Do minimum - future bus provision
Hi Rowan
We have contracts in place to deliver 25 growth busses with delivery between April 2021 and July 2022.
As a very basic assumption each bus would operate one peak of peak trip in the am peak adding to Golden Mile bus volumes.
As part of our LTP we are working on different assumptions for growth over the next decade. This is still a work in progress given uncertainties about Covid recovery and structural changes to peak demand.
We essentially have two projections that we are considering shown below. First has us getting back to 2018/19 patronage levels by 2022 vs 2025 for a more conservative projection. Given long lead times to procure new EV fleet the view at
this stage is that we work on the higher projection for the next three years and review for the following triennium subject to how demand actually recovers. The risk of over providing capacity being less than the risk of underproviding.
Official
the
under
Released
In terms of bus numbers below is a recent projection of additional PVR by bus company. Mana NZBus and Tranzurban expect almost all additional PVR to be in Wellington city so would result in an additional peak-of-the-peak service on the
Golden Mile.
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
