Dear Hugh,

 

Acknowledgement of Request for Information under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

Thank you for your email dated 20 February 2019, requesting information
regarding the number of bus complaints involving cyclists in Wellington.

 

Your request is being followed-up and a reply will be sent to you within
20 working days of the request being received.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Darrell Young

 

 

for

Luke Troy

General Manager

Strategy

Greater Wellington Regional Council

 

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Dear Mr Davenport

Attached is our response to your recent OIA 2019-058.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nichola

 

Nichola Powell | Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
 
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Level 2, 15 Walter Street

PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4179 | www.gw.govt.nz | www.metlink.org.nz

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Dear Hugh

 

I have forwarded your email onto the writer of your request.

 

Regards,

Sam

 

Sam Horsefield | Information Services Administrator

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao

15 Walter Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St,
Wellington 6142

 

 

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Mr Davenport

 

I have been advised that further reports can be run that may identify the
missing operators for the cases listed in your email of 25 March 2019.
These reports will be run and the information checked and then provided to
you as soon as it is practical.

 

Regards

 

 

Roland Daysh | Senior Democratic Services Advisor

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners
St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4192 I [1][email address]

[2]www.gw.govt.nz

 

[3]Ranger-Signature-V35-STRIPES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: GWRC <[4][email address]>
Sent: Monday, 25 March 2019 9:45 AM
To: Records <[5][email address]>
Subject: FW: Re: Official Information request - Information regarding the
number of bus complaints involving cyclists in Wellington [#1CC18I]

 

 

show quoted sections

Mr Davenport

 

Thank you for your email following up on your request (GWRC ref 2019-058).

 

I have been advised that the response to your follow up queries should be
with you by Wednesday 3 April 2019.

 

Regards

 

 

Roland Daysh | Senior Democratic Services Advisor

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners
St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4192 I [1][email address]

[2]www.gw.govt.nz

 

[3]Ranger-Signature-V35-STRIPES

 

 

From: GWRC <[4][email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2019 9:13 AM
To: Records <[5][email address]>
Subject: FW: Re: Official Information request - Information regarding the
number of bus complaints involving cyclists in Wellington [#1CFBEB]

 

 

show quoted sections

Hello Hugh

We have completed a broader search of the Resolve system to further
identify the operator involved in each case. Previously, the data included
the column ‘Operator/Team’ which identifies the Operator or Team that the
case was referred to, which could be an internal GWRC team.  In this data
set we have now included the column ‘Operator Involved’ which more readily
identifies the operator of the route that the case was about.

The new search has resulted in a greater number of search results 419 as
opposed to the 258 returned cases in the original search. The original
data set used different search parameters, namely it did not include the
keyword search ‘bike’, and therefore we have found more cases that fit
this criteria. Please note we have removed Case# 133266 from the final
search results (previously included in the original data set) as this
incident related to train services.

I have attached the updated file in excel format to this email.

Regards

Margaret

Margaret Meek  | Business Advisor
Metlink

T 04 830 4393
L2, 15 Walter St, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners St,
Wellington 6142

Follow us online: [1]Facebook | [2]Twitter

To find out how to plan your journey, go to [3]metlink.org.nz

 

[4]metlink_emailaddress_v1

 

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Davenport

 

I apologise for the delay in getting this clarification to you. Please
find further response to your queries, below.

 

In response to your query:
“1) I see your note explaining the "Operator Involved" having entries
such as "Bus/Ferry - General" meaning that GWRC could not identify the
operator involved. Mostly that makes sense. However, for some situations,
such as case 153899, the "Operator Involved" was not identified, but the
"Operator/Team" shows "Tranzurban". This is the same information shown in
the first release of information.

If the operator could not be identified, can you explain why Tranzurban
were marked as the Operator/Team? Or was it Tranzurban that was
identified, but not marked in the Operator Involved field?

Examples of this (with serious marked) are:

133683

153899

There are more examples without serious marked, that I would also be
interested in. I note that my original request asked for the operator
involved, and it appears that even though that particular field hasn't
been updated, that GWRC has the information to be able to provide that. It
may be the case for the few that fall into this category that the
"Operator/Team" can be used if it has the information. I would like to
just get confirmation on that.”

 

The ‘Operator Involved’ field identifies the operator of the route that
the case was about. When the ‘Operator Involved’ is listed as ‘Bus/Ferry –
General’ it indicates that the route operator was unable to be identified
at the time that the case was logged. The ‘Operator/Team’ field identifies
the Operator or Team that the case was last referred to for investigation
or action, which could be the internal GWRC team that case managed and
reviewed the response. Please note that cases can be referred to more than
one team during its lifetime, and this field only records the last team
referred to, i.e a case may be referred to the operator for investigation
and response, and then be referred to an internal GWRC team for case
management or review and provision of further service information before
we respond to the customer.

 

For the specific cases referred to above, we can confirm;

·         133683 – The bus in question was not in service at the time of
incident, so it did not display a route. As such, the route was logged
using the generalised ‘Bus/Ferry – General’ route. The route field
populates the ‘Operator Involved’ field in Resolve, and a generalised
route creates a generalised Operator Involved. However, we were given bus
identifiers by the complainant which confirmed the exact bus, and
therefore we were able to refer the case to the operator for investigation
and response (confirmed as per the Operator/Team field). In this case the
bus in question was actually a commercial charter service and therefore
the customer was invited to follow up directly with the Operator (but the
operator confirmed to us they had identified the driver and were taking
the appropriate actions regardless).

·         153899 - Customer was unable to identify the route of the bus at
time of logging, but we were able to later identify the bus and refer the
case to the operator for investigation and response (confirmed as per the
Operator/Team field).

 

 

In response to your query:

“2) Thank you for expanding your search to fit in more results. Not the
best look now that it is more than 1 incident a day. Is there any chance
that there could be more that you have missed this time, given that you
have already missed data so far? I could see the search terms 'bicycle',
'cycle', 'bike', 'cyclist' as being some terms that would most likely fit
all the criteria I had originally asked for.”

We are confident that we have captured all relevant data for your query
using the keyword searches to capture cases which contain the word or part
words ‘cycl*’, ‘*bicycl*’ and ‘bike’.

 

In response to your query:

“3) This point may be better suited as a follow up request, but may be
able to get answered here. I notice there was a few "Serious" ones marked
with "close call" that appeared to have no identifying information such as
route/operator. Did GWRC make any effort to determine the identity of the
operator/route, ie based on time/location/description/etc, or did they
just file it into the system to gather dust and nothing actually actioned?
I would have thought that a "Serious" case would at least get
investigated.

Examples include:

145260

153899 - Note this has Operator/Team as Tranzurban, as noted above in
point 1.

161029

161512”

 

In short, yes, GWRC does their best to identify the operator for ALL
cases, regardless of severity. All serious cases are case managed by
Metlink Resolve and if there is not enough information to identify the
operator, this team will use all systems available to try to identify the
bus (or at least operator) based on any information provided. If they are
unable to identify the operator, they contact the customer to request
further information to assist. Only if there is no further information
that can be gained, and there is no way to identify the operator are we
unable to complete an investigation for the customer. There are times
where an operator is able to be identified but the exact driver is not
(for example, at peak time if there are many services in the direct area
at the time of incident and no bus identifiers are provided). In these
cases, we have been advised that the Operator addresses the issues
broadly with the depot as a whole.

 

In response to your specific queries;

·         145260 - Customer was unable to identify the route of the bus at
time of logging, but we were able to later identify the bus and refer the
case to the operator for investigation and response (confirmed as per the
Operator/Team field). The customer followed up on the response and further
correspondence was case managed by GWRC.

·         153899 - see explanation about this case in response to your
query 1 above

·         161029 - This case was logged due to a councillor querying a
news article regarding a pedestrian accident. This was logged as an FYI so
that GWRC had record of the query.

·         161512 - The bus in question was not in service at the time of
incident, so it did not display a route. We were able to later identify
the bus and refer the case to the operator for investigation and response.
Councillors were later involved in the case, and therefore the
case was case managed by GWRC.

 

I hope this clarifies the information that you were provided.

 

Regards,

 

 

Roland Daysh | Senior Democratic Services Advisor

GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners
St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4192 I [1][email address]

[2]www.gw.govt.nz

 

[3]Ranger-Signature-V35-STRIPES

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hugh Davenport
[[4]mailto:[FOI #9638 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 April 2019 6:43 p.m.
To: Margaret Meek
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Official Information request - Information regarding
the number of bus complaints involving cyclists in Wellington [#1CC18I]

Dear Margaret Meek,

Can I please get clarification of atleast points 1 and 2 to ensure that I
have the most accurate data for what I need?

1)
I see your note explaining the "Operator Involved" having entries such as
"Bus/Ferry - General" meaning that GWRC could not identify the operator
involved. Mostly that makes sense. However, for some situations, such as
case 153899, the "Operator Involved" was not identified, but the
"Operator/Team" shows "Tranzurban". This is the same information shown in
the first release of information.
If the operator could not be identified, can you explain why Tranzurban
were marked as the Operator/Team? Or was it Tranzurban that was
identified, but not marked in the Operator Involved field?
Examples of this (with serious marked) are:
133683
153899
There are more examples without serious marked, that I would also be
interested in. I note that my original request asked for the operator
involved, and it appears that even though that particular field hasn't
been updated, that GWRC has the information to be able to provide that. It
may be the case for the few that fall into this category that the
"Operator/Team" can be used if it has the information. I would like to
just get confirmation on that.

2)
Thank you for expanding your search to fit in more results. Not the best
look now that it is more than 1 incident a day. Is there any chance that
there could be more that you have missed this time, given that you have
already missed data so far? I could see the search terms 'bicycle',
'cycle', 'bike', 'cyclist' as being some terms that would most likely fit
all the criteria I had originally asked for.

3)
This point may be better suited as a follow up request, but may be able to
get answered here. I notice there was a few "Serious" ones marked with
"close call" that appeared to have no identifying information such as
route/operator. Did GWRC make any effort to determine the identity of the
operator/route, ie based on time/location/description/etc, or did they
just file it into the system to gather dust and nothing actually actioned?
I would have thought that a "Serious" case would at least get
investigated.
Examples include:
145260
153899 - Note this has Operator/Team as Tranzurban, as noted above in
point 1.
161029
161512

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

show quoted sections