Agenda of Regional Transport Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Transport Committee

Friday 11 December 2020

Subject: Draft Regional Land Transport Plan for consultation

Reason for Report

1. To approve the draft 2021-31 Regional Land Transport Plan for public consultation.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. That the draft Regional Land Transport Plan be adopted by the committee for consultation.

3. That the committee approve the methodology used for prioritising significant activities and confirms the priority order of significant activities (as required by s124 of the LTMA) for inclusion in the draft RLTP.

Executive Summary

4. The draft Regional Land Transport Plan is provided as Attachment 1. This report seeks the Committee’s approval of the draft 2021-31 RLTP for public consultation.

5. This report also addresses the prioritisation methodology for significant activities, which was considered by the Committee at its workshop on the 20 November. Agreement to apply this methodology is sought from the Committee at this meeting.

6. The Committee is also invited to confirm the priority order of significant activities as considered by the RTC at their workshop for inclusion in the RLTP.

Background /Discussion

7. The RLTP is a statutory document that must be prepared by the Regional Transport Committee (the Committee) every six years and reviewed every three years as required by the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA). The Regional Council reviewed the current RLTP in 2018.

8. The RLTP comprises three key parts:

8.1. The strategic framework section which has the desired future state with a 30 year vision, objectives, headline targets, policies, implementation measures and long term results.

8.2. The transport investment programme, which responds to the critical problems and barriers to achieving the long-term vision and objectives. It tells the short to medium term investment story and identified specific investment priorities for the region.

8.3. Regional Programmes which set out the land transport activities for the next 3-6 years.

9. The RLTP which is Attachment 1 to this report must be prepared by the Committee and adopted by the Regional Council and submitted to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency by June 2021. This timeline enables Waka Kotahi to adopt the National Land Transport Programme by end August 2021, setting out the activities to be funded/anticipated to be funded from the National Land Transport Fund for the next 3 years (as per LTMA s19C requirements).

10. The 2021 RLTP review used a template developed by the Transport Special Interest Group alongside the NZ Transport Agency. The purpose of the template was to bring about greater consistency of RLTPs across all regions and ensure that all legislative requirements are met.

11. The 2021 RLTP process has included workshops with Committee members, tangata whenua and stakeholders and Technical Advisory Group members through the transport study process to define issues and opportunities and set the strategic direction of the next RLTP.

12. There were further workshops on sections that describe the current transport system and issues to be resolved, including a workshop on 20 November. The draft objectives and headline targets were reviewed and the Committee also considered the prioritisation of significant activities (see below)

13. The draft now includes further detail around monitoring and indicators.

Prioritisation

14. Under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 significant activities in the regional programme must be assigned a regional priority. Significant activities are not defined in the LTMA, making this a Committee decision. The Committee must also agree on the approach it will use to prioritise the significant activities by regional importance.

15. The Transport Special Interest Group has also developed a common methodology for prioritisation of significant activities. This is described in Attachment 2. This has been used as the basis for the Hawke’s Bay Region’s approach to prioritising significant activities. There has been a widely varying approach to prioritisation across regional councils creating inconsistency between regions. This methodology also proposes a new and consistent ‘significant activities’ definitions.

16. This regional prioritisation approach draws a line of sight between the outcomes and transport priorities identified in the RLTP front end and corresponding transport activities.

17. This is intended to enable a transition from the Hawke's Bay RLTP being a collation of various and unconnected projects into a coherent programme setting out an evidence base for investment in Hawke's Bay transport activities. This approach will allow the Committee to be clear on what new projects and packages are important to the region.

18. The regional prioritisation is only for significant activities. It complements Waka Kotahi’s Investment Prioritisation Methodology (IPM), which all improvement activities submitted for inclusion in the NTLP are required to be assessed against. The same factors are also applied. The same factors are also applied when a business case is presented for endorsement and/or a funding decision is requested.

Discussion

19. The proposed prioritisation methodology approach defines ‘significant’ as new improvement activities greater than $2 million and starting in the first three years of the programme (2021- 2024). This new value is consistent with the Waka Kotahi Low Cost Low Risk category for improvement projects. The prioritisation methodology allows the significant activities to be prioritised based on their alignment to the investment objectives agreed by the Committee as part of the Investment Logic Mapping exercise earlier this year. Note that this prioritisation process amends the value of a significant activity as outlined in the Committee’s previously adopted Significance Policy from $5m to $2m.

20. The proposed prioritisation approach recognises the activities below are essential and, on this basis, does not need to be prioritised:

20.1. stewardship of the network (maintenance and renewals)

20.2. funding existing public transport services

20.3. low cost/low risk programme

20.4. business case development

20.5. road safety promotion.

20.6. Projects that have funding secured are not prioritised.

21. There are four steps in the prioritisation approach for significant improvement projects:

21.1. projects or packages (grouping of interdependent projects) are assigned against the strategic response they contribute towards

21.2. each project or package is rated for the relative contribution it makes towards the assigned investment objectives

21.3. each project or package contribution is multiplied by the strategic response weighting to generate a score. This score is used to generate a preliminary ranking of all projects and packages that meet the definition of significance. Note that a similar prioritisation process has already been undertaken by the Technical Advisory Group (TAG).

21.4. the Committee decides whether the draft rankings are reflective of its collective view and can by agreement move projects and packages up or down. The draft list of significant activities in priority order will then be included in the draft RLTP to be consulted on.

22. Projects and packages that do not contribute to the strategic response will receive a low priority from a regional perspective. Projects and packages can have a low regional priority but still rank highly when assessed against Waka Kotahi’s Investment Prioritisation methodology. Even if ranked lower compared to other packages, this prioritised list reflects a regionally integrated approach to the transport needs of the region and supports future decisions for investment should funding become available.

23. The priorisation methodology was applied to the significant transport improvement programmes identified through this RLTP development process with an additional step whereby a number of contributing factors were also considered:

23.1. scheduling and interdependencies

23.2. community perspective, considering level of public interest and impact on local communities,

23.3. the degree to which the project addresses anticipated growth and development and

23.4. any benefit/cost information available.

24. The percentage weightings were assigned through the Investment Logic Map development already undertaken by the Committee. Each package was then rated for the relative contribution it makes towards the assigned strategic response on a scale of 1 – 10.

25. The outcome of this prioritisation is provided in the Draft RLTP (In section 11 of attachment 1)

RLTP Significance Policy

26. The Significance Policy (Appendix A in the attached draft RLTP) has been amended to align with approach outlined in relation to the prioritisation methodology for:

26.1. prioritisation

26.2. inter-regional significance

26.3. regionally significant expenditure from other sources

27. The existing policy in relation to significant variations remains unchanged. While there is some work at a national level to develop a more consistent and standardised approach to significance policies used across NZ, this has not advanced to a stage that can further inform this RLTP.

Options Assessment

28. The preparation and review of the Regional Land Transport Plan is a statutory requirement to complete the Regional Land Transport Plan

29. Other transport network management options were included in the consideration of relevant issues and options during the development of the draft RLTP.

Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment

30. In terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the matter of proceeding with consultation on the draft Regional Land Transport Plan is not significant.

Climate Change Considerations

31. The Hawkes Bay transport system’s contribution to climate change and mitigation of the effect on transport networks was a major consideration in the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan

32. Road transport accounts for 19.7% of the gross national greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the only sectors recording an increase in emissions. This RLTP addresses the impacts of the forecast growth in population, car ownership and freight exports in the region and adopts new objectives and policies that address this issue.

33. The RLTP also contains targets for mode shift away from private cars to alternative forms of active transport and public transport

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

34. The development of the RLTP has included consideration of tangata whenua and their transport needs. Tangata whenua are identified as vulnerable to transport network connectivity, especially those in rural areas and also in relation to objectives for road safety and driver licensing.

35. The RLTP includes policies and initiatives that will enable targeting of at-risk communities and behaviours as well as on-going maintenance and improvements of rural roads.

Financial and Resource Implications

36. The financial and resource implications of the RLTP 2021-2031 have been accounted for in Long Term Plan budgets by each Council in the region.

Consultation

37. The draft plan is being considered by the Committee prior to release of the draft for public consultation in 2021.

38. Transport stakeholders have been previously involved in the development of the Plan through targeted workshops.

39. It is suggested that the Committee should approve the draft RLTP in principle, noting that updated submissions of programmes on 11 December by councils and NZTA may result in minor changes to activities.

40. Any required changes to the RLTP will be notified to the Committee and if necessary, an extra meeting called. However, as our programme of activities is light, with most major projects already committed and the next round of significant improvements outside the timeframe of this RLTP, this is unlikely to be necessary.

41. The draft RLTP will then be formatted for external review and sent out to stakeholders for comment. Feedback will be collated and reviewed by the TAG before final adoption at the Committee’s March 2018 meeting

Other Considerations

42. The RLTP contains the direction for management and improvement of the transport networks and associated transport services including public transport and road safety programmes. The funding for these is provided for through the authorising organisations Long Term Plans.

43. The final content of all the activity tables in section 11 of the RLTP including activities approved but not completed and regionally significant expenditure from other funding sources are not yet completed but will be added prior to the release of the draft for consultation.

Decision Making Process

44. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

44.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

44.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

44.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

44.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons interested in the management and development of transport systems in Hawke’s Bay.

44.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Regional Transport Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “Draft Regional Land Transport Plan for consultation” staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Adopts the priorisation methodology described in Attachment 2

4. Agrees with the proposed prioritisation of significant activities in the draft Regional Land Transport Plan in Attachment 1 at section 11.

5. Approves the draft Regional Land Transport Plan in Attachment 1 and as amended by the Committee for consultation, following formatting and with any minor changes required through changes to transport programmes by councils and the NZ Transport Agency and completion of activity tables.

6. Releases the draft Regional Land Transport Plan for consultation in January for a period of 4 weeks.

7. Appoints a hearing panel to hear submissions on the draft Regional Land Transport Plan in March 2021.

Authored by: Approved by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Ceri Edmonds

Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	The Draft Regional Land Transport Plan
⇩2	Draft RLTP section 11 Prioritised Activities
⇩3	Draft Regional Land Transport Plan for Consultation Prioritisation Methodology

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Transport Committee

Friday 11 December 2020

Subject: Transport Manager’s December 2020 Report

Reason for Report

1. This item updates the Committee on a range of transport issues and seeks direction in relation to the Regional Cycling Governance Group

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Most of the report is for information and presented to the Committee as an information item.

3. This report also considers integration of the strategic planning and direction for the Hawke’s Bay cycleway, including the iWay and Hawke’s Bay Trails, with the development and implementation with the Regional Land Transport Plan and makes a recommendation to include representation on the Regional Transport Committee by the Hawke’s Bay Cycle Governance Group.

4. That the RTC support the proposal to Regional Council to continue with the flat low fare structure, pending an annual fare level review or review of fares in relation to on-demand services.

Executive Summary

5. A workshop was held with RTC members to discuss content and direction for the Regional Land Transport Plan. This workshop led to further development of the draft plan which is to be considered under a separate report in this agenda.

6. The TAG has met on several occasions to further develop the RLTP and also attended the RTC workshop.

7. The Driver Licensing Governance Group considered applications for funding programmes to improve the number of people gaining their full driver’s licence.

8. We received communication from a ratepayer outlining community concerns about changes to a school bus route.

9. The Regional Cycling Governance Group discussed the possibility for more integration with the RTC in respect of regional transport objectives at their recent quarterly meeting.

Background/Discussion

Driver Licensing

10. The Driver Licensing Governance Group was tasked with allocation of funds available to improve the rates that drivers moved through the driver licensing requirements from learners to holding full licenses. The group received three applications for driver license training programmes from:

10.1. GOT Drive

10.2. Connecting for Youth Employment Trust

10.3. Wairoa College

11. The applications were all approved for the first year’s programme.

12. A separate application from GOT Drive was also received. They sought funding to run a driver instructor programme to increase the number of driving instructors by delivering local training programmes.

13. Contracts have been prepared with all these providers with delivery of their programmes to be completed by June next year. These service providers also sought funding for a further two years so that programmes could be more effectively supported and continued.

14. Each applicant also sought funding for a further 2 years (which enabled on-going continuity in the delivery of programmes). The additional two years funding was approved in principal by the Governance Group, but on the proviso that local share funding to support NZTA contributions would also be available. The Governance Group undertook to seek this on-going funding from the organisations contributing to the current programme i.e. the local councils, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and Ngati Kahungunu Inc.

School Bus Service

15. The Ministry of Education provides transport solutions for students travelling to schools and manages bus contracts to provide this service.

16. The school bus service is provided for students subject to the following restrictions:

16.1. Transport is provided to the nearest school

16.2. Students must live more than 3.2 km (primary) or 4.8km (secondary school)

16.3. There is no suitable public transport option.

17. School students regularly use the public transport network and in limited circumstances where student use overwhelms the public service, additional bus routes are added to the service operated by the Council (for example, a school bus route from Flaxmere to Hastings Boys High School and another from Napier to Rudolf Steiner). Students will pay the usual fare.

18. The Ministry provides transport solutions where there is no public transport and is generally provided free to eligible students. In some places, the school bus operator might allow the public to use the bus if there is capacity.

19. The Ministry reviews its services regularly as student numbers and transport demand changes over time. A recent review led to local issues for Elsthorpe parents who were using the school bus for high school students travelling to Havelock. The Havelock school is not their closest school.

20. The Ministry of Education bus policies are also used in part to protect school rolls by not providing transport solutions for students who attend schools that are further away. However, parents still have a choice as to what school their children attend, and the closest school is not always their favoured option.

21. The Elsthorpe scenario illustrates this issue and demonstrates how it results in parents increasing transport demands as they find other solutions. The consequence of losing access to school bus services can result in an increased transport demand/private vehicle use as parents continue to send children to their favoured school.

22. The Council’s public transport staff and the local Ministry of Education staff tasked with managing the delivery of school bus services currently maintain close contact in respect of the services being delivered, particular where changes in one service potentially impact on the other.

23. However, any decisions are constrained by how these services are managed. There are quite separate objectives and policies and funding models guiding delivery of school and public transport solutions. The possibility of integrating planning and delivery of transport solutions for school students and the wider public is not something that can be resolved at a regional scale.

24. This Committee is considering a significant new objective in relation to reducing use of private vehicles. It will need to explore new opportunities or ways of providing transport choice to its community so they can meet their objective.

25. Public transport and the school bus services both provide transport solutions as well as transport choices. Both contribute to reducing use of private vehicles. Integrating decisions about how these services are provided and funded could enable both services to maximise the benefits and improve overall efficiencies of these services. This includes not just considering before and after school services for students, but integration with public transport where after-school activities lead to great use of private cars because of the limitations of the school bus service.

26. The RTC could consider advocating to both the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Education to consider a more integrated approach to the delivery of school bus and public transport services that better enables wider transport objectives to be met for both students and the public.

Regional Cycling Governance Group

27. The Regional Cycling Governance Group meets quarterly to consider preparation and implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Cycling Plan. The establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Cycling Governance Group was originally an operational requirement of NZ Cycle Trail Incorporated. NZ Cycle Trail Incorporated provides for the governance and management of the NZ Cycle Trail and of which Hawke’s Bay Trails is a Great Ride member.

28. NCC, HDC WDC and CHBDC have their individual cycle networks in development. The Regional Cycle Governance Group performs a valuable regional cycling/walking overview role for the development of networks for both recreational and transport. HBRC oversees the Hawke’s Bay Trails network of HBRC in conjunction with NCC, HDC.

29. The Group’s membership includes elected representatives from the HBRC, Napier, Central Hawkes Bay, Wairoa and Hastings Councils, and representatives from Hawke’s Bay Tourism, the District Health Board, and the NZTA. It is also supported by technical staff from the member councils.

30. The Cycling Plan is not a statutory plan, but is developed as part of managing the Hawkes Bay Trails network as well as integrating with the local cycle iWay networks. The iWay network is the urban shared cycle/walking infrastructure being developed by Napier and Hastings Councils. The cycling plan addresses recreational and sporting cycling activities as well as transport choice and includes within its brief a consideration of health outcomes for the community. The governance group also oversees cycle safety education.

31. The Regional Cycling Governance Group recognises the linkages and overlaps between its functions and goals and those of the Regional Transport Committee. It is also aware of the ambitious target for mode shift the Council is considering in the Regional Transport Management Plan. The group supports closer liaison with the RTC to ensure goals, objectives and programmes are aligned.

32. The critical contribution that cycling and walking will make to meet the Committee’s mode shift targets suggests a need for a greater line of sight and connection between the Committee and the cycling governance group. It is suggested that this could be provided through inviting a Regional Cycling Governance Group to be an advisory member of the Committee.

33. The Transport Technical Advisory Group could also be further supported by including technical input by the HBRC Cycle Network Co-ordinator in the TAG.

Bus Flat Fare Review

34. Since we went live with the new Bee card system at the end of August 2020, we have been operating a low flat fare trial (approved by Council earlier in the year).

35. The fares are:

35.1. $3 cash or $2 with a Bee card for a two zone trip (between Napier and Hastings)

35.2. $2 cash or $1 with a Bee card for a one zone trip (within the Napier area; within the Hastings area).

36. The boundary is EIT, which means EIT students pay only a one zone fare wherever they travel to/from.

37. The new simplified fare system is proving to be very popular with passengers and bus drivers.

38. It is believed that the low fares contributed to post-Covid patronage of 96%, which is higher than other regions of NZ, which are around 90%. This increase in patronage is a positive step in our climate change battle and it will help us to meet our target of reducing the number of car journeys being made.

39. The amount of cash fares being presented has also reduced, which is good news for the health and safety of bus drivers. Some regions have moved/are moving to eliminate cash fares, however at this time we are not considering this as we believe it would cause unnecessary hardship and inconvenience for some of our passengers, particularly those on low incomes who cannot afford to purchase a Bee card ($5) and minimum top-up ($5).

40. If we are to revert to our old fare structure we will need time to let our passengers know of the changes, we will also need to be prepared for hundreds (possibly thousands) of phone calls/visits from Bee card holders wanting council staff to update their concession status. For this we need to sight evidence i.e. tertiary student ID, Community Services card, and we’re not geared up to do this at reception as reception staff don’t have access to the Bee card Customer Service Workstation (we only hold two CSW licences).

41. Reverting back to the old fare structure will result in reduced patronage. We know that there is an element of ‘inconvenience’ in using public transport, however the low fares have made that inconvenience worthwhile. Increasing the fares will see many passengers return to the comfort and convenience of their own personal vehicles.

42. Retaining the current fare tariff is demonstrating Council’s commitment, in a tangible way, to reducing the number of private car journeys and reducing emissions by approximately 180 grams of CO2 per kilometre (in a light vehicle).

43. The fare is currently very low however, and is likely to require review as part introducing the on-demand service. Given the reasons above we favour continuing to operate the current flat fare at the current low fare levels until we carry out the annual fare review at the end of this financial year.

44. However, we also note that Waka Kotahi/NZTA is proposing some changes to the Public Transport Investment Policy and the Guidelines for regional fare policy development which may impact on this fare review proposal.

45. We are seeking the RTC support for the proposal to Regional Council and NZTA to continue with the flat low fare structure, pending the annual fare level review or review of fares in relation to on-demand services.

Climate Change Considerations

46. The public transport and cycling transport issues do not directly impact on climate change, however they have some relevance in supporting shift in modes of transport to more sustainable options and thereby assisting with meeting emissions targets.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

47. In respect of road safety issues and driver licensing, some communities are at higher risk than others. This particularly includes Wairoa, which features in adverse death and serious injury statistics as well as in relation to driver licensing.

Decision Making Process

48. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

48.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

48.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

48.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

48.4. The persons affected by this decision are people with an interest in transport, particularly delivery of cycling infrastructure and public transport

48.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Regional Transport Committee

1. Receives and considers the “HBRC Transport Manager’s December 2020 Report” staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

3. Recommends to the Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency that the flat fare for public transport be continued until the annual fare level review or review of fares in relation to on-demand services.

4. Invites a representative of the Regional Cycling Governance Group to be an advisory member of the Committee.

5. Directs the RTC Technical Advisory Group to include cycling expertise within their terms of reference.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Megan Welsby

Sustainable Transport Coordinator

Approved by:

Ceri Edmonds

Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Transport Committee

Friday 11 December 2020

Subject: Roadsafe Update

Reason for Report

1. This regular report provides the Committee with an update on road safety statistics in the region and a snapshot of road safety activities undertaken by Road Safe Hawke’s Bay.

2. It also describes the process for developing and reporting on the Road Safe Action Plan and suggests measures to provide the Committee with a greater level of direction and oversight.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

3. The committee’s direction for how it wishes to manage the development, implementation and evaluation of the Road Safe programme is sought.

4. The 3 year Road Safety programme is also attached for the Committee’s endorsement.

Executive Summary

5. This report provides the usual summary of programme activities and road death statistics. It also describes the process used to develop the Road Safe programme.

6. It also discusses the process by which the Road Safe programme is developed and suggests some changes to the current process.

Background /Discussion

7. There are three significant documents that provide the direction for the road safety activities, including:

7.1. The Government Policy Statement for Land Transport (GPS)

7.2. “Road to Zero “– the NZ road safety strategy 2020.

7.3. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Land Transport Plan

8. The current Regional Land Transport Plan addresses road safety and includes a number of strategic objectives and policies directed at reducing deaths and serious injuries.

9. The proposed draft of the Regional Land Transport Plan now goes further to include specific new targets to reduce deaths and serious injuries aligning with the national Road to Zero strategy.

10. The focus for road safety in New Zealand is provide through the Road to Zero Strategy which recognises that all elements of the road system need to be strengthened, including road infrastructure, speed management, vehicle safety, road user choices. This approach recognises that all parts of the system have an important role in reducing our crash rates; if people make mistakes, then our roads, roadsides and vehicles should, as much as possible, protect them and other road users from harm.

11. The Road Safe Hawke’s Bay programme addresses road user choices and activities focus on the high risk road safety for the region and includes the following projects over the next three months:

11.1. Preparing for the Christmas themed checkpoints across Hawkes Bay with the Impairment prevention team

11.2. Fatigue stop to be implemented at Raupunga on the 27^th December in partnership with New Zealand Police

11.3. Continue to develop the social media DVD with all associated partners from the Expo. This will highlight the collaboration of the partners to reduce road trauma

11.4. Plan the media coverage leading up to the Xmas and New Year period

11.5. Revise all the Project Plans to reflect the guidelines and outcomes relating to Road to Zero Strategy

11.6. Setting activity dates with NZ Police for checkpoints and fatigue stops for next year

11.7. Continue the planning for the HB Youth Road Safety Expo

Hawke’s Bay Statistics

12. Road death statistics are reported by the NZTA with data to end November shown below. The total below does not include the recent crash on SH2 which claimed the lives of 3 young people.

13. The number of road deaths so far this year (updated to 23) exceeds totals for each of the previous 5 years.

The Road Safe Programme

Funding and programme development

14. The Road Safe programme is part of the continuing annual programme developed and delivered by Road Safe Hawke’s Bay team including the Road Safe Partners. The Road Safe Partners are the contributing Councils, NZ Police and NZTA. There are other groups and organisations who contribute to or support Road Safe Hawke’s Bay including Plunket, Hauora Providers, Early Childhood providers, District Health Board, St John Ambulance Service and Fire and Emergency Service.

15. Road Safe also supports and complements other road safety initiatives. While there is no funding increase in the Road Safe programme sought within the next RLTP term, there is other planned work on roading infrastructure for cycleways, walkways and intersections as well as infrastructure work on SH5 also aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries. The Road Safe programme provides a platform that supports and complements this work.

16. The application for road safe funding for the next three years being made as part of the current Regional Land Transport Plan review process reflects a similar level of expenditure and effort as the last 3 years. The 3 year programme is provided in Attachment 1 to this report. This report seeks the RTC endorsement for this programme as part of the RLTP programme.

17. The local share funding is contributed by the Regional Council as well as the 4 local councils. The application assumes an on-going local share contribution as in previous years. Special projects such as such as the driver licensing programme can attract further funding provided local share can be raised.

18. Waka Kotahi provides the balance funding at a financial assistance rate for our road safe programme of 51%. The Driver License Programme attracted a 74% level of assistance.

19. The funding application is for activities that target the high-risk road safety issues for the region, what we plan to do under each category, who we will do it with and what the intended outcomes are. All the work is related to the RLTP policies and based on risks identified in the Communities at Risk Register (Waka Kotahi).

20. The funding application provides the overall direction and content of the Road Safe activities and this guides the development of an annual work programme. This year’s annual programme is provided as attachment 2 for the Committee’s reference.

21. The development and oversight of the road safe programme was historically carried out by a Road Safe sub-committee of the Committee. This sub-committee was disbanded 8 years ago in favour of direct reporting to the Committee However, in practice, the development of the Road Safe programme has been somewhat independent of direct input by the RTC since then. Instead, the Committee member organisations are provided annually with the proposed Road Safe Programme information and requested to review and provide feedback on the programme content.

22. Note that the Road Safe programme will contribute to meeting the proposed new target to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 40%. The programme aims to reduce the incidence of risky behaviour or increase uptake of safe behaviours (such as promoting breaks through the fatigue stops). It is part of a three-pronged approach that includes education, enforcement and infrastructure management. The overall success can be measured by the reduction in crash statistics, though this is hard to attribute to any one factor.

23. NZTA are also collecting increasing detailed statistics in relation to risk behaviours contributing to crashes. These indicators are now reflected in the draft RLTP and will provide additional measures or indicators for the Road Safe programme.

RLTP oversight and evaluation

24. As noted above there was previously a Road Safe sub-committee of the RTC that previously considered the programme development and funding proposals to NZTA as well as regular oversight and input into the annual delivery of the programme.

25. Two options for future management of the Road Safe Programme are suggested:

25.1. Re-establish the Road Safe sub-committee to:

25.1.1 Receive and provide input into the 3 year programme for approval by the RTC with each RLTP review

25.1.2 Provide input and oversight of the annual programme

25.1.3 Receive evaluation reports on significant projects implemented under the Road Safe Plan

25.1.4 Report to the regular meetings of the Committee.

25.2 Direct RTC oversight of the Road Safe programme as above and

25.2.1 Require the TAG to provide technical advice on the preparation of the 3 year review of the Road Safe Programme and development of the annual Road Safe plan and

25.2.2 Require the TAG to provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the implementation of the annual road safe plan and provide evaluation of significant projects.

Decision Making Process

26 Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

26.1 The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

26.2 The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

26.3 The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

26.4 The persons affected by this decision are people with an interest in transport, particularly in how the Road Safe programme for road users is developed and implemented.

26.5 Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision

Recommendations

That Regional Transport Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “Roadsafe Update” staff report.

2. Approves the 3 year Road Safe Programme contained in Attachment 1

3. Either

3.1. Establishes a Road Safe sub-committee which is directed to provide direction and oversight into the review of the 3 year Road Safe Programme, and the development and implementation of the annual Road Safe programme and to receive regular reports from the sub-committee,

or:

3.2. Directs the RTC-TAG to:

3.2.1. provide technical advice on the preparation of the 3 year review of the Road Safe Programme and development of the annual Road Safe plan and

3.2.2. provide quarterly reports to the Committee on the implementation of the annual road safe plan and provide evaluation of significant projects

Authored by:

Linda Anderson

Regional Manager RoadSafe Hawke's Bay

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Approved by:

Ceri Edmonds

Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	Road Safe Programme 2021-2024
⇩2	Road Safe Report Annual Programme 2020-2021

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Transport Committee

Friday 11 December 2020

Subject: December 2020 Public Transport Update

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the Committee with an update on HBRC’s public transport operations.

Background

2. The responsibility for contracting public transport services is assigned to regional councils under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Under Section 35, the council must consider the needs of the “transport disadvantaged” when preparing its Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP), which sets out the services that the council will provide.

3. “Transport disadvantaged” means people who the regional council has reasonable grounds to believe are the least able to travel to basic community activities and services (for example work, education, healthcare, welfare and shopping). As part of the responsibility to the transport disadvantaged, councils also provide Total Mobility services where suitable transport operators exist to deliver the service.

New Bus Ticketing System

4. The new bus ticketing and ‘Bee’ smartcard system, which is being used by nine regional councils across NZ, is working reasonably well and proving to be very popular with goBay passengers.

5. We have issued and distributed over 5000 Bee cards, of which 2936 have been registered. It should be noted that Bee cards do not have to be registered, but registration protects the balance should the card be lost or stolen.

6. Passengers are now able to top up their Bee cards on-line or with cash/EFTPOS at the regional council, this is speeding up loading times considerably. Bee cards can also be topped up onboard the bus with cash.

7. The new simplified fare system is proving to be very popular with passengers and bus drivers.

8. It is believed that the low fares contributed to post-Covid patronage of 96%, which is higher than other regions of NZ, which are around 90%.

9. The amount of cash fares being presented has also reduced, which is good news for the health and safety of bus drivers. Some regions have moved to eliminate cash fares, however at this time we are not considering this in Hawke’s Bay as we believe it would cause unnecessary hardship and inconvenience for some of our passengers.

Covid-19

10. At level one there are no restrictions on public transport in HB, however we are aware that this could change at any time. Currently face coverings are ‘recommended’ but not mandatory.

Onboard Security

11. Onboard security was removed once fares were reintroduced and as predicted, incidents of anti-social behaviour have reduced, however anti-social behaviour is something drivers are facing on a daily basis.

Driver Shortages

12. Due to a bus driver shortage the Napier/Hastings Go Bus Depot Manager recently began a bus driver recruitment campaign, however feedback from applicants was that the wage was too low and other local employers were offering a higher hourly rate. The current hourly rate for bus drivers is $20 per hour (the living wage is $22.10 per hour). The issue of the living wage is currently being investigated by Waka Kotahi.

Public Transport Trips

13. Diagram 1 shows public transport trips made from July to October 2012-20.

(It should be noted that there were no trip statistics for July and August as the crossover in ticketing systems saw the buses operating without ticketing equipment).

Diagram 1 Public Transport Trips

Bus Service Costs

14. Diagram 2 (attached) shows the year to date net cost (after fares and excluding GST) of operating the goBay bus service from July to October 2012-20.

15. Recent cost increases are largely due to inflationary pressure (as our bus contract is adjusted by an NZTA index reflecting fuel, labour and infrastructure prices) lower fare revenue due to lower patronage, and the cost of paid breaks added to the driver hours as required by the Employment Relations Amendment Act.

Total Mobility

16. The Total Mobility Scheme provides subsidised taxi travel for Hawke’s Bay residents who are unable to use public transport due to a significant, permanent impairment. People assessed for and registered to the scheme receive taxi vouchers entitling them to a 50% fare discount (some restrictions apply). The scheme is administered by the regional council and funded by both the Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

17. Diagram 3 shows the number of Total Mobility trips made from July to October 2012-20.

Diagram 3 Total Mobility Trips

18. Diagram 4 (attached) shows the cost of the Total Mobility Scheme (excluding GST) from July to October 2012-20.

Decision Making Process

19. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Transport Committee receives and notes the “December 2020 Public Transport Update” report.

Authored by:

Megan Welsby

Sustainable Transport Coordinator

Mary-Anne Baker

Acting Transport Manager

Approved by:

Ceri Edmonds

Acting Group Manager Strategic Planning

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

Public Transport Statistics Tables

Topic	Raised by