Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
Regional
Transport Committee
6 June
2025
Subject: Regional Public Transport
Plan 2025-2035
Reason for report
1. This deliberations report
provides the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) with staff analysis and
recommendations on the submissions received during consultation on the draft
Regional Public Transport Plan 2025 – 2035 (RPTP) to enable a decision to
recommend the RPTP for adoption to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.
Executive
summary
2. Through the public
consultation process, community engagement, and submissions received, it became
clear that there was broad support for the plan. Submitters highlighted a range
of operational elements and improvements that would make the proposed new
services become even more appealing, and enhance long term service delivery.
Some of these included customer service training, better information availability,
easy to understand wayfinding, and supporting infrastructure that is fit for
form and function to enhance user experience and access.
3. As a result of the
submissions a number of recommendations have been developed. In a broad sense
the recommendations can be split into two areas:
3.1. A desire from submitters
for ongoing community and user engagement in the final location of routes,
along with general engagement on public transport services, particularly in the
lead up to the new network. These recommendations do not require any changes to
the draft RPTP.
3.2. A number of policy and
operational changes are suggested to enhance both the opportunity the new
network presents for our communities, and to help ensure the Total Mobility
Scheme is fit for the future. As a result, some proposed changes have been made
to the draft RPTP.
4. An updated draft of the
2025 – 2035 plan with all proposed updates is provided in Attachment 1
for consideration.
Deliberations report structure
5. For clarity of the
Committee, and for ease of reference / reading, this deliberations report will
be presented by each question as posed in the draft RPTP consultation. It will
also include ‘other feedback’ as relevant. Staff have analysed
all submissions received and identified eight themes that have emerged. Each
submission has been allocated a primary and secondary theme.
6. Analysis will be presented
by consultation question, along with any identifiable or material
‘asks’ that came through the submission and/or hearing process.
Additionally, common feedback will be identified and set out as part of the
analysis, accompanied by a staff response.
7. An updated draft RPTP with
recommended changes is included as Attachment 1 for consideration, and
to facilitate the deliberations and recommendation process.
Background
8. Regional Transport
Committees have a statutory obligation, under the Land Transport Management
Act, to plan, prepare, and consult on a Regional Public Transport Plan. There
are a range of instances when RPTPs must be reviewed, but it is generally
accepted practice that they are at least reviewed every three years.
9. The RTC consulted on a step
change public transport network in 2022. The proposal offered our communities a
bidirectional network with higher frequency, extended operating hours, and more
efficient routes. Since the consultation on the 2022 plan, a range of
significant external factors mean there is not the level of funding available
to fully enable the network, as proposed.
10. Public consultation for the
2025 – 2035 RPTP re-affirmed the intent to implement the new network as
proposed in 2022, but with a longer implementation time than first envisaged.
The longer implementation time will enable HBRC to incrementally increase
levels of service as it secures increases in funding.
11. As a lot has changed in
terms of funding availability in Hawke’s Bay since 2022. As such the main
focus of the 2025 public consultation was to create awareness of the planned
network changes, and engage with as many users, communities, and advocacy
groups as possible to ensure the proposed new routes were going to the right
places.
12. Additionally, the 2025 RPTP
consultation placed focus on the Total Mobility Scheme, ensuring it is fit for
the future. The draft RPTP outlined a number of changes to the polices
supporting the Total Mobility scheme, aiming to lift service quality for users
and make the scheme more sustainable long term.
Consultation
13. Public consultation on the
draft RPTP was carried out in conjunction with the HBRC Annual Plan to ensure
an efficient and effective use of resources and drive value for money. The RPTP
featured as a topic of the Annual Plan consultation.
14. Consultation ran for a
period of five weeks, from Monday 31 March to Friday 2 May, including the
Easter and ANZAC periods. Throughout the consultation a total of 99 submissions
were received on the Annual Plan. Of those 86 provided feedback on the draft RTP,
with nine detailed written submissions received.
15. In the lead up to and
throughout the consultation period, transport staff conducted extensive
community engagement, presenting, engaging with 30 groups, and having over 50
meetings to discuss the draft RPTP and gather feedback. Transport staff will
continue to build on these relationships in the lead up to the network
implementation, ensuring communication, marketing, and engagement efforts are
maximised in the lead up to the new network implementation.
16. Hearings on the draft RPTP
were held on Friday 16 May, with 17 submitters speaking to their submissions.
Throughout the oral submission there were a number of recurring themes
including supporting infrastructure, accessibility, levels of service, and information
availability, among others.
17. Through the public
consultation, five specific questions were asked on the draft RPTP with the
primary intent of encouraging users and communities to consider the impact of
proposed changes on their travel patterns / behaviours. The questions were:
Question
1: Do
you have any comments on the planned changes to the public bus services now
scheduled for implementation from early 2026? Tell us what you think.
Question
2: Do
the planned changes work for you and your community?
Question
3: We
are considering whether we keep cash as a form of payment when paying for bus
tickets. Which option do you prefer?
Option
A. We retain cash payments
Option
B. We move to a fully cashless system over time
Question
4: We
are proposing to make several changes to our Total Mobility Scheme to ensure
the scheme continues to meet user needs and is financially sustainable. Do you
support the proposed changes to our Total Mobility Scheme?
Question
5: Do
you have any other comments on the draft RPTP? Tell us what you think.
18. Submitters were able to
provide additional comment via a text box on each question. This helped to
gather valuable qualitative insights and tease out common key themes. A
number of submitters also attached a separate written submission document.
Key
themes identified
19. Across all 86 submissions
there were a range of themes. While the language or framing may differ between
submissions, the core themes stood out. The table below sets out the key themes
and describes what they include. These key themes were used in the staff
analysis applied to each question, set out in more detail in the following
sections.
20. A primary and secondary
theme were allocated to each submission during staff analysis.
|
Key theme
|
Description
|
|
Accessibility,
infrastructure, inclusion and safety
|
This
theme captures feedback related to the physical and social accessibility of
public transport, including stop infrastructure, vehicle design, personal
safety, and equitable access for users with disabilities, older people, and
other vulnerable groups. It reflects community expectations for a universally
inclusive and safe network.
|
|
Levels
of service
|
Responses
under this theme refer to the frequency, coverage, and reliability of
services. This includes requests for more trips, longer operating hours, or
improved punctuality. It reflects public demand for a bus network that better
supports daily travel needs and lifestyle patterns
|
|
Information
availability - ease of access - wayfinding
|
This
relates to how well people can find and understand public transport
information, including timetables, route maps, live tracking, and signage.
Feedback under this theme highlights the importance of clear, accurate, and
easily accessible information for users to confidently use the system
|
|
School
transport
|
This
theme applies to comments focused on how the network serves school students.
It includes calls for dedicated services, safe routes, and timing alignment
with school hours. This reflects parental and community concerns about
student mobility and safety.
|
|
Timetable
connection / alignment
|
This
covers feedback on how well services connect with each other or other modes
of transport. It includes issues with wait times, missed connections, and
poor synchronisation between routes. The theme reflects a desire for a more
seamless and efficient journey experience. Delivering timetable alignment
will help make public transport a genuine alternative
|
|
Cost
and funding concerns
|
Comments
here relate to fare levels, concession availability, value for money, and how
the system is funded. This theme reflects public sensitivity to affordability
and questions about how ratepayer or taxpayer funds are used.
|
|
Modal
Integration and Connectivity - key destinations served - key nodes
|
This
theme captures views on how well the public transport network connects with
other transport modes (e.g. walking, cycling, regional travel) and whether it
serves key destinations such as hospitals, shopping centres, or employment
hubs. It reflects a desire for a more connected and useful network.
|
|
Rural
and small community access
|
This
theme focuses on equity of access for those living outside main urban
centres. It includes concerns about isolation, limited-service options, and
transport disadvantage. Feedback under this theme reflects a call for greater
investigation and potential inclusion of rural and remote areas in the
transport network, along with Community Transport opportunities.
|
Submissions analysis, staff response,
and RTC recommendations
21. The following submissions
analysis, staff response, and RTC recommendations are presented by question, as
asked during the public consultation.
22. It is important that the
Committee notes that some submission responses were more statements that
didn’t have a theme. For example, one response to question 2 was “it’s
been a long time coming! I understand the reasons, but it’ll be good to
have it – looking forward to 2026”. This comment is generally
supportive and does not fit within the scope of theme coding. In instances like
this, staff have not allocated a theme.
Question
1: Do you have any comments on the planned changes to the public bus services
now scheduled for implementation from early 2026? Tell us what you think
23. Sixty-one submitters
provided written responses to the question. The theme analysis is presented in
the graph below.
24. Three key themes came
through as clearly important to submitters when considering the planned changes
to the network:
24.1. Accessibility,
Infrastructure, Inclusion and Safety
24.2. Modal integration and
connectivity – key destinations served
24.3. Levels of service
25. These three primary themes
echo feedback received throughout the 2022 RPTP consultation where submitters
highlighted frequency, reliability, operating hours, good supporting
infrastructure, and key destinations as qualities of a good public transport
network.
Q1
feedback received
26. Among submissions some
consistent feedback emerged around the planned changes to the bus services,
including:
26.1. A number of submissions
highlighted planned changes to the current Route 12, specifically the planned
change of the trunk route with it no longer going down Pākōwhai Road.
There appears to be a number of submitters who utilise this service relatively
regularly and were not supportive of the planned changes as they believe their
service was being removed.
26.2. A small number of
submissions did not support the planned changes at all, stating they are part
of their daily travel routine and that the routes work fine as they are.
26.3. Across the submissions
there was strong support for Airport & Sports Park access.
26.4. Some submitters suggested
trialling the network changes ahead of fully committing to them.
26.5. The planned changes to the
Taradale route shone through with consistent feedback, indicating they are not
quite right. This route will require further engagement and work.
26.6. A number of submitters did
not support the MyWay service removal and were concerned with the impacts that
would have, particularly on the disabled and elderly communities that have come
to rely on it.
26.7. Comments were received
around the limited level of information availability across the network and how
supporting infrastructure must be fit for form and function to make public
transport accessible for people of all ages and abilities
26.8. Several submissions called
for the introduction of peak time express services between Hastings &
Napier with a limited number of stops.
26.9. The two planned routes
servicing Flaxmere received consistent feedback, particularly as they will
likely impact a range of users. It was suggested that these routes will require
some more work and community engagement ahead of network implementation.
26.10. Several submitters, while supporting
the changes, outlined the need for annual driver training around disabled users
and customer service across all service providers to enhance accessibility and
support good service delivery for both bus and Total Mobility services.
26.11. Customer experience and customer
service came through as common feedback, particularly during oral submissions.
There is a need to understand what current and future contractual levers are
available to better enhance customer service on buses.
26.12. Some comments were made around the
planned 70% coverage in urban areas and the need to increase this, particularly
for elderly and less able people. These comments were supported by a suggestion
to have MyWay, or a similar type of service as a feeder to the main routes.
26.13. School travel and access to public
transport for students was a common piece of feedback, including from the
Ministry of Education. There was a general sense that, where possible, public
transport needed to cater to school transport.
Q1
staff analysis
27. The following table
clusters the feedback received into common threads and includes staff responses
and recommendations where appropriate.
|
Common
feedback
|
Staff
response
|
|
Pākōwhai
Road service changes
|
Response:
Pākōwhai
road remains serviced, simply on a different route. Users relying on this
route to access work and education will need to transfer to the main trunk
route at the Hospital.
Staff
anticipate reasonable peak time demand on Pākōwhai road and will
continue to examine options for additional capacity.
No
changes to RPTP required.
|
|
School
transport / access
|
Response:
The
draft RPTP caters for school travel and any additional capacity
considerations that may be required via policy 2.
No
changes or additions to the RPTP are required.
|
|
Peak
time express services
|
Response: Staff will continue to
examine the options and opportunities for peak time services, based on demand
and capacity, and in line with the RPTP Significance Policy. Affordability
and current levels of funding will be a core consideration in any express or overflow
services.
No
changes to RPTP required.
|
|
MyWay
|
Response:
MyWay
continues to receive support from members of the community and submissions
have expressed their concern at the proposed withdrawal of the service.
At
the March 2024 RTC, a MyWay review paper was presented which recommended, and
was accepted, that the MyWay trial conclude based on poor value for money
outcomes. This review was noted in Section 2.1.2 of the Draft Plan. For
completeness and clarity, an executive summary of the MyWay trial review is
included in attachment 2, which sets out the key findings of the review and
sets out high level modelling of expected costs to run MyWay in Napier versus
the fixed route services.
In
MyWay’s place, a brand-new series of connected scheduled services would
once again provide an improved, whole of Hastings urban bus network, which
will provide better opportunity and capacity to increase public transport
use. Extensive support will be supplied to transition MyWay users to
the new network, and Total Mobility services as well, where appropriate.
The
draft RPTP allows evaluation of On Demand services as a transport solution in
any part of a future public transport network in Hawke’s Bay.
No
changes to the RPTP are required.
|
|
Information
availability & supporting infrastructure
|
Response: The draft RPTP provides
for a range of policies that set out:
• How we will work
towards greater and easier information availability across a range of platforms
• Commits to clear
and easy to understand wayfinding
• How we will work with
delivery partners and advocacy groups, particularly the disabled and elderly
communities, to create a long term supporting infrastructure pipeline
No changes to the draft RPTP are
required.
|
|
Some
limited support for route changes
|
Response:
The new
network was initially proposed in 2022 and reconfirmed in 2025. A robust
communications, marketing, and engagement process will be required in the
lead up to the network implementation.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Planned
routes for Flaxmere
|
Response:
The
significance Policy in the draft RPTP enables changes to routes through
certain / specific communities without triggering a broad public
consultation. This will enable staff to continue to engage with the Flaxmere
community and key stakeholders in the final location of routes.
Recommendation:
That
staff to continue engagement with the Flaxmere Community, key stakeholders,
and advocacy bodies to collaboratively refine and confirm the final route
locations.
|
|
Customer
service / customer experience
|
Response:
The
current contract for services enables close operational planning from a
contract management perspective. The draft RPTP provides for annual driver
training to help create greater understanding and ease of use for disabled
peoples. Policies specific to customer service training can be added to
future contractual agreements.
Recommendation: Include a specific
policy on customer service training expectations in relation to service
delivery in future contractual agreements.
|
|
Service
coverage
|
Response: A 70% coverage rate,
that is the percentage of the population within 400 metres of a bus stop, is
generally accepted as industry standard. Any increases in coverage may go
against core planning principles of efficient and direct routes and require
increased levels of service. This would come at a cost to rate payers. The
draft RPTP sets out the opportunity for both community transport and some
future form of on demand transport, subject to funding. These services may
provide a future solution.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
Q1
summary and recommendations
28. The majority of matters
covered above are already catered for in budgets and operational changes.
However, there may be additional costs to consider in relation to any future
peak or overflow services to enhance peak time connections and demand. At the
time of writing, these costs are currently unknown, but will be provided for in
future budgets as needed.
29. Staff will continue to
engage with the Flaxmere Community, key stakeholders, and advocacy bodies to
collaboratively refine and confirm the final route locations.
30. In addition, staff
recommend that clauses be included in any future contractual agreements that
defines expectations for customer service training in relation to service
delivery.
Question
2: Do the planned changes work for you and your community?
31. Twenty-eight submitters
provided a written response to this question and the key themes are discussed
following.
32. In terms of primary themes,
accessibility, infrastructure, inclusion, and safety, along with Modal
integration and Connectivity, came through clearly. These key themes support
the overall direction of the draft RPTP, particularly in relation to how HBRC will
work with key delivery partners to plan for and provide supporting
infrastructure and key destinations such as the airport being served.
33. Sixty-eight submitters
provided a response to the yes / no box as part of question 2, shown below. On
a percentage split basis, ‘yes’ respondents were 51% and
‘no’ were 49%While the responses are reasonably close in percentage
terms, this can reasonably be explained and interrogated through the commentary
supplied. A reasonable number of submitters who may have selected
‘no’ provided responses around matters such as information
availability, timetable alignment, or network elements such as route numbering
– all matters that will be provided for within the operational context of
the new network.
Q2 feedback received
34. Some of the more common
feedback received relating to question 2 includes:
34.1. The changing of route
numbers might create confusion in communities as a lot of regular users are
already familiar with the routes, their numbers, and where they go.
34.2. The safety of the buses was
highlighted as an enabler of greater uptake and something that should be
addressed in any change / improvement.
34.3. A number of submitters
highlighted that the change to a patronage network might present additional
barriers for the elderly and disabled communities as they may have to walk
further to the nearest stop. A good marketing and communications strategy was
suggested as a means to help ensure awareness of the changes.
34.4. Several submitters called
for more weekend services to enable greater, and cheaper, access to
destinations and activities.
34.5. Several larger submitters,
such as the Mitre 10 Sports Park and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, called for more
direct access from Flaxmere to Napier for education, social, and employment
opportunities.
34.6. In their submission, Te
Taiwhenua O Heretaunga noted that rural, outlying, and growth areas, such as
Omahu, aren’t currently served by public transport. There may be some
opportunity for a fixed route services could have potential running from Flaxmere
to EIT via Omahu. Community transport may be an option in other areas.
34.7. The planned changes to the
Taradale route came up as a consistent theme, in particular the removal of
service in and around Church Road and Merlot Drive. Some submitters felt this
may disadvantage the elderly or those who currently utilise the service.
34.8. A consistent piece of
feedback by a range of submitters is that good wayfinding design will be
important. This will help clearly articulate the routes, destinations, and
transfer points. For it to be effective it must be simple and easy to
understand at a glance.
34.9. Ongoing engagement with
users and communities around final route design and location was a common piece
of feedback. During consultation and community engagement, and confirmed
through submissions, it became clear that some users and communities needed more
time to fully understand and provide input into the proposed route changes.
35. Several submissions
championed the need for a public transport service from Central Hawke’s
Bay to Hastings. A trial service was proposed in the 2022 RPTP, subject to funding.
Several submitters called for this trial service to be amplified in importance
and prioritised for funding. Submitters also noted there is a need to work with
the Central Hawke’s Bay community to ensure any trial service meets
community need.
Q2
staff analysis
36. The following table
clusters the feedback received into common threads, including a staff response
and recommendation where appropriate.
|
Common
feedback
|
Staff
response
|
|
Bus
safety, route numbering, and wayfinding
|
Response: The current fleet of
buses will have CCTV installed in by June 2025, with this being a standard
feature in any new fleet. Route numbering, colours, and ease of understanding
for users will be a key part of the new network implementation and worked
through with key stakeholders. The design of Wayfinding will complement this,
ensuring the network is easy to understand at a glance.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Network
change and impacts on certain groups including disabled and elderly
|
Response: In the lead-up to the
new network launch, we will create and roll out a clear, customer-focused
communication, engagement, and marketing plan to ensure everyone understands
what’s changing and how it benefits them — with a particular
focus on meeting the needs of elderly and disabled customers.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Increased
weekend services
|
Response: The current funding
levels for public transport services necessitates a range of trade-offs,
particularly around levels of service. Increases in weekend services can be
enabled in future years as increases in funding allow.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Greater
access from Flaxmere to Napier / EIT
|
Response: The Flaxmere community
will have greater access to the overall network as it will be serviced by two
routes. The Hospital will function as the nearest and best interchange point,
facilitating ease of transfer from Flaxmere onto Hastings-EIT-Napier services.
More
direct routes from Flaxmere to Napier can be examined following network
implementation, with careful and considered demand validation work carried
out before any further network changes are made and will be subject to
funding.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Planned
changes to Taradale route
|
Response: Following the
consultation and engagement process, staff are aware of a variety of
challenges with the planned Taradale route. Further community and user
engagement is required.
Recommendation: That staff continue
engagement on the Taradale route with the community, users, and stakeholders,
in line with the RPTP Significance Policy and present a final recommended
network to the 29 August RTC meeting.
|
|
Ongoing
engagement on the final design and location of routes
|
Response: Throughout both the
consultation / engagement process, and the submissions received, staff have
observed a clear need for further engagement with communities and users in
the final design and location of routes ahead of network implementation.
Recommendation: That staff to continue
engagement with communities and users in the final design and location of
routes, in line with the RPTP Significance Policy and present a final
recommended network to the 29 August RTC meeting.
|
|
CHB
commuter trial
|
Response: The proposed CHB commuter service
continues to receive strong support, but current funding availability will
not allow it to be commenced within the foreseeable future. Staff will
investigate, through engagement with the community, what an acceptable
funding mechanism will look like, including local, regional and third-party
funding opportunities.
Recommendation: That the RTC recommends
to both HBRC and CHBDC that appropriate funding is included in their 2026-27
Annual Plan to enable a trial service to commence, subject to suitable
co-funding from NZTA.
|
|
Services
to Omahu, Bridge Pa, Paki Paki, and other outlying areas
|
Response: A route running from
Flaxmere to EIT via Omahu has opportunity and worthy of investigation. Staff
would need to continue working with Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga and the
community to validate demand and look at options.
Other
areas, such as Bridge Pa are generally not suitable for fixed route services
at this stage. However, Community Transport potentially provides a valid
opportunity for these communities, along with others.
Recommendation: Staff continue to work
with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and communities to explore potential future
fixed route options for Omahu, along with other options, and that Community
Transport is explored, with demand validated, for this and other areas. This
work is to be done in line with the RPTP Significance Policy.
|
Q2
summary and recommendations
37. Current planned changes are
catered for in existing budgets.
38. It is anticipated there
will be some additional cost and resource time associated with ongoing
community engagement. However, these are catered for in existing budgets and
resourcing plans.
39. Network elements such as
Wayfinding design and a marketing plan are catered for in existing budgets.
Additional external resource and subject matter expertise may be required in
the development of these elements, but again, this is catered for in existing
budgets
40. Changes to routes (e.g.
Omahu) and / or the addition of Community Transport will likely add cost to the
network. However, these changes will be in future improvements and operational
budgets.
41. Staff will continue
engagement on the Taradale route with the community, users, and stakeholders,
in line with the RPTP Significance Policy and will present a final network to
the 29 August RTC meeting.
42. Staff will also continue to
engage with communities and users in the final design and location of routes,
in line with the RPTP Significance Policy and will present a final recommended
network to the 29 August RTC meeting.
43. That the RTC recommends to
both HBRC and CHBDC that appropriate funding is included in their 2026-27
Annual Plan to enable a trial service to commence, subject to suitable
co-funding from NZTA.
44. Staff continue to work with
Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga and Communities to explore potential future fixed
route options for Omahu, along with other options, and that Community Transport
is explored, with demand validated, for this and other areas. This work is to
be done in line with the RPTP Significance Policy.
Question
3: We are considering whether we keep cash as a form of payment when paying for
bus tickets. Which option do you prefer?
45. The two different options
presented through the consultation in relation to whether we keep cash were:
45.1. Option a: we retain cash
payments
45.2. Option b: we move to a
fully cashless system over time.
46. In total, 66 submitters
provided a response to this question. Building on the responses, some
submitters provided additional thoughts on cash – set out in subsequent
sections.
47. 56% of submitters are in
favour of retaining cash payments and 44% of submitters would prefer we move to
a cashless system over time.
Q3
feedback key themes
48. As seen in the results
above, most of the written feedback on question 3 has a theme of Accessibility,
Infrastructure, Inclusion, and Safety. This primarily speaks to the need to
have some form of suitable payment method to simply access the service, both
from a physical (i.e. being able to pay for your trip and board the bus) and
social (i.e. knowing that it is an option and you can pay for it) perspective.
Q3
feedback received
49. The below commentary
reflects the most common feedback on the question of cash as a payment method.
49.1. Some concerns raised around
the use of cash as means of efficient budgeting for users / families and
removal of cash may adversely impact these users and their ability to access
services.
49.2. Some feedback received
around how the removal of cash may adversely impact the elderly and disabled
communities as they may not have the necessary access to new payment methods,
and the quantum of change could be difficult for some users.
49.3. Some feedback highlighted a
limited understanding of the new NTS system (e.g. “there should be a pay
wave option” #68). This suggests a focus on communications, marketing,
and ‘how to’ once implemented.
50. Several submitters
suggested a longer-term transition and education period may be required,
especially for older persons before the removal of cash.
Q3
staff analysis
51. The following table
clusters the feedback received into common threads, including a staff response
and recommendation where appropriate.
|
Common
feedback
|
Staff
response
|
|
Use
of cash for budgeting purposes
|
Response: Staff have quantified
that just less than 10% of fares across all services are currently paid for
with cash. Boarding data enables staff to gain greater insight as to where
these users are. When the NTS transition occurs, this will give staff the
ability to engage with these communities, and hopefully the specific users,
to enable a smooth transition to the new system. This may include a free Motu
Move card.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Impact
on elderly and disabled communities
|
Response: The National Ticketing
System is a nationally led initiative to integrate payment methods and
consolidate ticketing systems. HBRC has limited control over core elements of
the system.
During
the operational roll out, HBRC will work with providers, users, and other
stakeholders to ensure education, communication, and marketing are delivered
in a manner that resonates with different user groups in a way they
understand.
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Limited
understanding of NTS system and payment options
|
Response: The full capabilities
and elements of the NTS scheme will be rolled in to a communications and
marketing plan, ensuring all necessary element of the new ticketing system
are widely communicated and understood.
This
will be an operational initiative
No
changes to the draft RPTP are required.
|
|
Considerations
of long-term transition period to a cashless service
|
Response: With just less than 10%
of fares paid by cash, this provides a logical indicator of reliance of cash
as a payment method across the service. It is reasonable to expect that cash
use will naturally decline over time as the new ticketing system becomes common
place. A transition solution that blends both options a and b will likely be
the best fit for Hawke’s Bay.
Recommendation: The RTC adopts an
amended approach for cash fares to:
“Cash
to be removed as a form of payment across the network when cash fares reduce
to less than 5% of total ticket transactions for a period of at least 3
months”.
|
Q3
summary and recommendations
52. The transition to the
National Ticketing System is catered for in budgets, both current and future.
From that perspective, there will be no additional financial or resource
implications (other than those currently planned) around the continuation or
removal of cash.
53. Any potential future
changes to the use of cash as a payment method will have minimal resource and
budget impacts and is relatively straightforward to implement operationally.
54. Staff recommend than an
amended approach for cash fares is adopted, being that staff will remove cash
across the network when cash fares reduce to 5% of total ticket transactions
for a period of at least 3 months.
An updated Policy #34 around cash fares to read: “Cash to be removed
as a form of payment across the network when cash fares reduce to less than 5%
of total ticket transactions for a period of at least 3 months, following the
implementation of the National Ticketing System”.
Question
4: We are proposing to make several changes to our Total Mobility Scheme to
ensure the scheme continues to meet user needs and is financially sustainable.
Do you support the proposed changes to our Total Mobility Scheme?
Q4
feedback key themes
55. The draft RPTP presented a
range of changes to the Total Mobility scheme, most notable around what is a is
not payable by the scheme. It also proposed a number of new policies to be
implemented, including annual driver training on disabled / mobility impaired
needs and customer service.
56. The graph below presents
the quantitative results of the submissions received, with clear support for
the proposed changes.
57. In terms of key themes from
the submissions received, quite a number of the written answers were statements
rather than feedback that could be built into the RPTP. Of the submissions that
could be themed, they mostly related to accessibility, infrastructure,
inclusion, and safety. Given the Total Mobility Scheme is about creating access
for those without an alternative, it is unsurprising therefore, that feedback
received has fallen into these themes.
Q4 feedback received
58. The points following
reflect the most common feedback in relation to the Total Mobility changes.
58.1. Several advocacy groups
suggested conducting a survey or piece of research to understand users need for
the TM service and barriers to utilising buses.
58.2. General support for
ensuring the subsidy applies only from point A to B.
58.3. The Positive Ageing
Strategic Group encouraged HBRC to investigate how the scheme might interface
with ACC rehabilitation schemes to enable greater access.
58.4. Continued engagement with
users and disadvantaged groups to ensure the scheme remains sustainable
58.5. Limited availability or
awareness of TM in outlying areas, such as CHB.
58.6. Advocacy agencies and
bodies noted that some users have had varying experiences of the scheme from
operators and suggested annual standardised driver training as a possible
solution.
58.7. The Total Mobility
assessment process places a material, and in some cases significant, burden on
the agencies that conduct eligibility assessments on behalf of HBRC. Several
submissions noted the current model is not sustainable and encouraged HRBC to examine
alternative models, potentially introducing and initial screening phase.
Q4
staff analysis
59. The following table
clusters the feedback received into common threads, including a staff response
and recommendation where appropriate.
|
Common feedback
|
Staff response
|
|
Total
Mobility eligibility assessment process and impacts on assessment agencies
|
Response: The TM assessment
process has not been reviewed for a number of years.
Staff,
in collaboration with TM assessors, should investigate alternative assessment
options / methods / pathways that balance need with desired outcomes with a
view to implementation.
Recommendation: Include a new policy,
#85, with the following wording:
1. Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council will investigate alternative funding and operational models
for undertaking eligibility assessments for the Total Mobility Scheme, with
the aim of ensuring long term sustainability, improved accessibility, and
consistency of service.
As
part of this process, the Council will engage collaboratively with assessment
agencies to explore options that enhance efficiency, reduce administrative
burden, and maintain high standards of fairness and accuracy in eligibility
determination.
|
|
Subsidy
applying to time in motion only
|
Response: The policies in the RPTP
specify that the Total Mobility subsidy is only payable for the time an
operator’s vehicle is in motion.
No
change to the RPTP.
|
|
Options
for ACC and Total Mobility integration
|
Response: Opportunities may exist
for the ACC and Total Mobility schemes to work in together, noting that ACC
is a ring-fenced compensation scheme with a different mandate to Total
Mobility. This will require focus and investigation by staff.
Recommendation: Staff recommend a new
Policy #68 in the draft RPTP is included to read:
“Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
will work in partnership with ACC and approved assessment agencies to
investigate where there may be gaps in the current Total Mobility and ACC transport
schemes when providing for individuals requiring transport assistance and
options to fill these gaps.”
This
review will consider whether the existing eligibility criteria adequately
reflect the needs of all people with impairments affecting their ability to
access transport, with a view to recommending adjustments where appropriate
to ensure the scheme remains equitable, inclusive, and aligned with changing
community needs.
|
|
Total
Mobility assessment process
|
Response: Staff are aware the
assessment process presents some challenges for agencies. Refining this and
making it fit for the future will be vital for the ongoing sustainability of
the scheme.
Changes
are dealt with above.
|
|
Continued
engagement with TM users, providers, and assessors
|
Response: Ongoing engagement with
all involved in the Total Mobility Scheme will form a significant part of
ongoing business-as-usual activities.
No
change required to the draft RPTP
|
|
Driver/
operator training for disability awareness and customer experience
|
Response: Policies in the RPTP
cater for annual driver training in relation to disability awareness.
Customer service training should be added to enhance the overall experience.
Recommendation: Update Policy #90 to
include customer service training on an annual basis, with the Policy now
reading:
“Ensure
driver training is provided annually around disabled and mobility impaired
users with a view to ensuring they are assisted to utilise the service and
have a positive customer experience.”
|
Q4
summary and recommendations
60. A review of the Total
Mobility assessment process may uncover a need for further funding to undertake
assessments that will need to be considered in future NLTP and LTP
considerations.
61. Staff recommend that a new
policy is included in the RPTP, after policy #82, with the following wording:
61.1. Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council will investigate alternative funding and operational models for
undertaking eligibility assessments for the Total Mobility Scheme, with the aim
of ensuring long term sustainability, improved accessibility, and consistency
of service.
62. Staff recommend that a new
policy is included in the RPTP, following Policy #66 with the following
wording:
62.1. “Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council will work in partnership with ACC and approved assessment agencies to
investigate where there may be gaps in the current Total Mobility and ACC
transport schemes when providing for individuals requiring transport assistance
and options to fill these gaps”
63. Staff recommend Policy #90
is updated to include customer service training, with the following wording:
63.1. “Ensure driver
training is provided annually around disabled and mobility impaired users with
a view to ensuring they are assisted to utilise the service and have a positive
customer experience.”
Question
5: Do you have any other comments on the draft RPTP? Tell us what you think
Q5
feedback key themes
64. Question 5 was a relatively
open question. As a result, submitters were able to discuss anything they felt
was applicable. This made it challenging to theme code responses due to the
open nature of the question.
Q5
feedback received
65. The following presents
common feedback received across submission in relation to anything we may have
missed or not considered in the draft RPTP.
65.1. The need for better
supporting infrastructure is required across the network. This is particularly
true for the disabled and elderly communities and will assist with making the
service easier to use, boosting independence.
65.2. Ensure the NTS has wider
top up capabilities (types, locations, providers) to enable ease of access for
all users. Also necessary to ensure there are no minimum limits on top up
amounts.
65.3. The changing of services
& routes may disproportionately impact some people who currently rely on
the services.
65.4. A substantial number of
submissions expressed a desire to continue engagement in the route changes for
the new network and ongoing engagement in the overall service design and
delivery.
65.5. Information availability,
integrated information via the use of apps, and good wayfinding came out as
common feedback. Related to this was a general need to ensure route crossover
and interchange points are clear, easy to understand, and simple to navigate.
65.6. Better frequency and
extended operating hours were common threads throughout submissions, with some
suggesting that extended operating hours on just Friday / Saturday would be a
great start. This did also include a number of suggestions for slightly earlier
start times on some routes, if possible.
65.7. Desire from delivery &
co–investment partners to ensure we work together to continue planning
and delivery of supporting infrastructure.
65.8. Examine options and
opportunities for outlying areas such as Bridge Pa and Paki Paki looking at
some form of public transport / community transport service.
Q5
staff analysis
66. The following table
clusters the feedback received into common threads, including a staff response
and recommendation where appropriate.
|
Common feedback
|
Staff response
|
|
Supporting
infrastructure
|
Response: The draft RPTP sets out
a range of policies around how HBRC will work with groups, particularly the
elderly and disabled, as subject matter experts, in the long-term design of
supporting infrastructure.
The
draft RPTP further sets out how we will work with key delivery partners to
develop and plan a long-term infrastructure investment pipeline.
No
changes to the draft RPTP required.
|
|
Information
availability
|
Response: The draft RPTP has a
number of policies that set out how we will ensure information is available
and integrated across the network. Investment in real time signs at key stops
is already being planned and prepared for.
Elements
such as good way-finding and clear transfer points will be covered off in the
lead up to the new network implementation during the design and marketing
phase.
No
changes to the draft RPTP required
|
|
Better
levels of service
|
Response: The current funding
envelope for services is constrained and will likely only enable the current
levels of service across the new network.
The
draft RPTP sets out the long-term ambition for levels of service by route,
including frequency and operating hours. It is worth noting that these may
change in the future as funding levels change. By way of example, operating
hours may be extended on Friday and Saturday evenings in the first instance,
as opposed to a blanket approach.
No
changes to the draft RPTP required
|
Q5
summary and recommendations
67. Supporting infrastructure
is provided by the relevant road controlling authority, Napier and Hastings
councils for instance, and as such is reliant on ongoing local and national
funding availability. A change in bus routes will incur a large one-off cost to
implement new stops.
68. HBRC has budget
availability for timetable and wayfinding changes required for the new network.
69. Improved levels of service,
for instance earlier and later buses, can only happen when additional national
and regional funding becomes available.
70. There are no recommended
changes resulting from submissions in relation to question 5.
Other feedback (not directly related to RPTP)
71. The feedback following
captures information from submissions that fell outside of the five
consultation questions, but still presented a material improvement / insight
gathering opportunity for the network.
71.1. HBRC needs to develop and
implement a marketing strategy for PT services to drive patronage.
71.2. Community transport was a consistent
thread across a number of submissions, notably, the CCS Disability / Age
Concern submission set out a range of opportunities and asks the Council to
fund a Community Transport Lead and set up a Community Transport fund. Along
with others, these submissions outlined the potential of community transport in
Hawke’s Bay.
71.3. The Mitre 10 sports Park
Trust also requested we examine longer term opportunities around Saturday
services, creating a ‘Saturday hub’ at the Sports Park.
71.4. One submitter who spoke at
the Hearing raised a number of points for consideration:
71.4.1. Long term user education /
manners programme as a means to creating a better service delivery model (e.g.
saying thanks to the driver when getting off)
71.4.2. The need for more
consistent marketing of the service
71.4.3. Examining opportunities to
collaborate / partner with other service providers to drive use and patronage,
e.g. partnering with swimming pools during school holidays
71.4.4. Consider how the end-to-end
service delivery can be improved – better buses, easier to access
information, increased perceptions of safety, etc
71.4.5. The need for customer
service training for drivers across the service.
71.5. The New Zealand Transport
Agency (NZTA) provided detailed, specific, and technical feedback in their
written submission. The feedback covered a range of elements and, as a result,
no clear themes but rather simply the need for staff to work through the feedback.
71.6. Several submitters,
including those from disability support / advocacy groups, would like the
ability for support / care workers to be able to travel for free on the public
bus service. This would enable greater independence and (potentially) higher
service use among disabled users. Further, it would remove an existing barrier
for disabled users.
|
Issue
|
Staff response
|
|
Marketing
strategy for public transport services
|
Response: A well developed and
considered marketing plan is an operational tool to drive greater uptake of
services.
With
HBRC looking to implement a new network from January 2026, a comprehensive
marketing, communications, and engagement plan is necessary. This will help
us ensure we have created broad awareness of the changes, communicate the
impact these will have, engage with users and communities on their terms and
in manner that will resonate with them, and initiate some long-term marketing
campaigns.
One
key element of the plan will be how to use the network, primary interchange
and transfer points, and how to connect efficiently.
This
plan will be presented to the RTC at their 29 August meeting for information
purposes.
No
change to the draft RPTP required.
|
|
Investigate
a Community Transport lead
|
Response: Community Transport is
flourishing in the Waikato Region. In this region there is a dedicated member
of staff on the Waikato Regional Council’s Transport Team who
facilitates and manages Community Transport.
Community
Transport presents an opportunity to significantly enhance access across
Hawke’s Bay. Having a lead would enable focus to be placed on this form
of transport and accelerate opportunities. However, this would require
additional resource in the HBRC transport team.
Staff
will quantify potential resourcing requirements for a Community Transport
role ahead of the next HBRC LTP.
|
|
Develop
a regional Community Transport fund
|
Response: Leveraging off policy
#97 in the draft RPTP, there is an opportunity to create a regional Community
Transport fund via a general rate. This would need to be done in the next
Long Term Plan, from 2027. Leveraging the Waikato example, this could simply
be a set amount per ratable unit, per year. This would then go into a
regional fund to enable Community Transport initiatives. Having this
foundational funding would then allow conversations with other potential
funding parties who may wish to be involved.
Recommendation: That the Regional
Council considers introducing general rate funding in the next LTP to
establish a regional Community Transport Fund which will allow both
operational funding and staff funding.
|
|
Increased
Saturday services to Mitre 10 Sports Pak
|
Response: additional services can
be assessed on an ongoing basis. It will be important to validate need and
demand before making any investments into new or different services. However,
on face value, this service ideas have merit.
|
|
Service
enhancement and collaboration considerations (customer service, better
service delivery, etc)
|
Response: Service delivery and
customer service will form large focus areas for the new network. There is
currently a policy in the draft RPTP setting out the requirement for annual
driver training in relation to disabled users. There is strong merit in
having a similar policy for customer service.
Any
future collaboration initiatives (e.g. voucher incentives, package deals,
etc) will be developed and included in future marketing and communications
strategies.
End
to end service delivery will be enhanced with a new network and, at some
point, a more modern bus fleet. This will enhance the amenity value of the
buses, safety, and also provides an opportunity for service elements such as
on bus announcements.
Recommendation: Include a new policy #45
to ensure annual customer service training is delivered, with the following
wording:
“Through
the contract held between Council and Service Providers, require customer
service training be completed by all bus drivers and support staff annually.
Additionally, ensure any new drivers receive service / network specific
customer service training as part of the on boarding process”
|
|
Detailed
feedback on the draft RPTP from NZTA
|
Response: The submission on the
draft RPTP provided by NZTA is principally technical on the plan’s
structure, providing feedback on specific elements of the Plan, but with no
clear themes.
Staff
will work through the NZTA submission and make updates to the draft RPTP
where appropriate and required. No changes to policies.
|
|
Free
travel for disabled support persons
|
Response:
The
draft RPTP commits, via several policies, to work with the disabled and
elderly to help remove barriers to using the service and enhance the service
design and delivery over the long term. Enabling greater utilisation of the
service for disabled users is part of this.
Policy
#35 in the draft RPTP currently deals with fare exemptions for companions.
|
Other
feedback – summary and recommendations
72. A number of matters raised
in this section sit firmly within public transport operations. For example, the
development of a marketing strategy is an operational matter, with the reality
being that a new network simply could not be implemented without a marketing
and communications strategy.
73. A number of submitters,
throughout the submission questions and general feedback, presented ideas for
new, different, or future service options and opportunities. All of these
opportunities will be assessed operationally on a case-by-case basis as the opportunity
and supporting funding becomes available.
74. Community Transport came
through clearly as a transport option to progress across Hawke’s Bay,
subject to funding. It became clear there was more than sufficient demand to
enable a variety of community transport initiatives. Building on this, two recommendations
to progress Community Transport are that:
74.1. Staff will investigate and
quantify potential resourcing requirements for a Community Transport lead ahead
of the next Long Term Plan process.
74.2. Staff will investigate how
HBRC might fund, from the general rate, the establishment of a regional
Community Transport Fund, to allow both operational and staff funding, lead
ahead of the next Long Term Plan process.
75. Customer service and
customer experience was another consistent piece of feedback throughout the
submission. Submitters highlighted that better customer service would make the
journey and service more pleasant and appealing, ultimately serving to increase
regular patronage.
75.1. Staff have recommended the
inclusion of a new Policy, #45, to ensure annual customer service training is
delivered, with the following wording:
75.1.1. Through the contract held
between HBRC and Service Providers, require customer service training be
completed by all bus drivers and support staff annually. Additionally, ensure
any new drivers receive service / network specific customer service training as
part of the on boarding process.
Decision-making considerations
76. 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:
76.1. The use of a consultation process
required under s82 of the Local Government Act 2002 has been followed.
76.2. The persons affected by
this decision are all those with an interest in the region’s public
transport systems.
Recommendations
That the Regional Transport Committee:
1. Receives and considers the Regional
Public Transport Plan 2025-2035 staff report.
2. Agrees that the Regional
Transport Committee can exercise its discretion and make the relevant decisions
having consulted with the community and persons with an interest in the
decision through the public consultation process undertaken between 31 March and
2 May 2025.
3. In response to feedback
provided on the planned changes to the public bus services scheduled for
implementation from early 2026:
3.1. Notes that the RPTP caters
for school travel and any additional capacity considerations that may be
required in Policy 2 (HBRC will provide service levels with targeted minimum
long-term frequencies …”
3.2. Notes that staff will
continue to engage with the communities, key stakeholders, and advocacy bodies
to collaboratively refine and confirm the final route locations.
3.3. Agrees that no changes or
additions to the RPTP are required in relation to the planned changes to the
public bus services feedback received.
4. In response to feedback
provided on whether to retain cash as a form of payment for bus tickets:
4.1. Agrees that cash fares will
be removed as a form of payment across the network when cash fares reduce to
less than 5% of total ticket transactions for a period of at least 3 months.
4.2. Amends the RPTP to reflect
the approach to cash payments detailed in 4.1 above.
5. In response to feedback
provided in relation to Total Mobility eligibility assessment:
5.1. Agrees to the amendment of
the RPTP to include a new policy (#68) Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
will work in partnership with ACC and approved assessment agencies to
investigate where there may be gaps in the current Total Mobility and ACC
transport schemes when providing for individuals requiring transport assistance
and options to fill these gaps.
5.2. Agrees to the amendment of
the RPTP to include Policy (#95). Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will
investigate alternative funding and operational models for undertaking
eligibility assessments for the Total Mobility Scheme, with the aim of ensuring
long term sustainability, improved accessibility, and consistency of service.
6. vIn response to feedback
provided on proposed changes to the Total Mobility Scheme, agrees that
the RPTP is amended as proposed for consultation.
7. In response to feedback
provided in relation to free travel for disabled support persons:
7.1. Notes that Policy #35 in
the RPTP currently deals with fare exemptions for companions.
7.2. Agrees that no changes or
additions to the RPTP are required in relation to the free travel for
disabled support persons feedback received.
8. In response to feedback
provided in relation to service enhancement and collaboration:
8.1. Agrees to the amendment of
the RPTP to include new Policy (#45) Through the contract held between HBRC
and Service Providers, require customer service training be completed by all
bus drivers and support staff annually. Additionally, ensure any new drivers
receive service / network specific customer service training as part of the on
boarding process.
8.2. Agrees to the amendment of
the RPTP to modify the wording in Policy (#90) Ensure driver training is
provided annually around disabled and mobility impaired users with a view to
ensuring they are assisted to utilise the service and have a positive
customer experience.
9. In response to feedback
provided in relation to Community Transport:
9.1. Notes that staff will
investigate and quantify potential resourcing requirements for an HBRC
Community Transport role ahead of the next Long Term Plan process.
9.2. Notes that staff will
propose, as part of the next LTP process, that Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council considers introducing general rate funding for the establishment of a
regional Community Transport Fund for both operational funding and staff
funding.
9.3. Agrees to amend RPTP Table
11 in response to Community Transport feedback received, to read "Identify existing initiatives and
support the establishment of a Trust to run Community Transport services across
the region, including Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay and satellite
communities around Napier & Hastings.
10. In response to feedback
provided in relation to other comments on the draft RPTP:
10.1. Notes that a comprehensive
marketing, communications, and engagement plan will be developed for the
implementation of the new network, and that this will be shared with the RTC at
te 29 August 2025 meeting.
10.2. Agrees that no changes or
additions to the RPTP are required in relation to the other comments on
the draft RPTP feedback received.
11. Accepts the amendments to
the Regional Public Transport Plan as proposed for consultation and above.
12. Recommends that
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopts the Regional Public Transport Plan
2025-2035 that incorporates the amendments agreed above.
Authored by:
|
Bryce Cullen
Senior Advisor Transport Strategy
& Policy
|
Zavia Hands-Smith
Sustainable Transport Advisor
|
|
Russell Turnbull
Manager Transport
|
|
Approved by:
|
Katrina Brunton
Group Manager Policy &
Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇨
|
Tracked changes RPTP for 6 June 2025
deliberations
|
|
Under Separate Cover
available online only
|
|
2⇨
|
MyWay Review summary of findings
|
|
Under Separate Cover
available online only
|
