Whakatipu transport evidenceMove Queenstown
Search

QTS-037 · Business case chapter or appendix · 2020

Appendix B19 Technical Note 25: VURT Analysis (with Appendix B20 Proposed Speed Limits, B21 Way to Go Engagement Booklet and B22 Engagement Report)

Part of: Rapid transit evidence →

Open documentPDF · 11 MB Opens in a new tab.

A bundle of four appendices to the 2020 NZUP Queenstown Detailed Business Case. Technical Note 25 (B19) estimates pedestrian wellbeing benefits of Queenstown Town Centre street upgrades and the town centre arterials using the Valuing the Urban Realm Tool (VURT), with VURT values multiplied by four to align with emerging Waka Kotahi research. It estimates street-improvement benefits of about $76 million PV and arterial benefits of $28-34 million PV (up to $53 million), with illustrative retail spending (+$30-45m p.a.) and property value (+~$50m) responses not claimed as additional benefits. B20 is a one-page speed limit map. B21 is the August 2020 Way to Go engagement booklet on the emerging programme (Stanley Street hub, bus priority, arterials). B22 is the Engagement Report (April 2019 to September 2020), summarising workshops, stakeholder meetings, the April 2019 'Way to Go' engagement and online survey, the August 2020 engagement, written submissions and an engagement register. The April 2019 survey found 58% preferred a high-capacity PT link on SH6A and 42% mass rapid transit along Queenstown Hill. The register records landowner meetings on mass rapid transit alignment and terminals, and an agreed-in-principle 'gondola proof of concept' with QAC.

What the document says

Context and purpose: This PDF bundles Appendices B19 to B22 of the Queenstown Transport Business Case prepared under NZTA Contract 2018235 for NZTA (Waka Kotahi). All author names are redacted under s 9(2)(a).

B19 Technical Note 25 (7 September 2020) explains how pedestrian wellbeing benefits were applied in the Town Centre business case, partitioned by phase (p.2), and attaches the 18 March 2020 note. The method scored 17 PERS street attributes before and after improvements, converted the changes to dollars using VURT, and multiplied the results by four after calibration against emerging Waka Kotahi research (Nunns and Dodge 2019) (pp.3, 7). Pedestrian time is valued at NZ$12/hour (p.8). Street design benefits total $76.1m PV, made up of $32.1m for the inner town centre and $44.0m for the outer town centre (p.8). Arterials 1+2 give $15.3m and Arterial 3 gives $15.5m at 4%/60 years, or $8.2m and $8.8m at 6%/40 years (p.13). Sensitivity results range from $13.1m to $52.9m (p.14). Illustrative responses are retail spending up 10-15% ($30-45m p.a.) on a base of about $300m, and property value uplift of about 5-6% (~$50m), both explicitly not claimed as additional benefits (p.4). International visitors are estimated at 30-40% of beneficiaries (p.11). The traffic modelling assumes bus max plus parking measures deliver 40% alternative mode share at 2028 and 60% at 2048 (p.12). There is a footer inconsistency: page 2 is footed 'Final 7 November 2020'.

B20 (p.16) is an image-only speed limit map. B21 (pp.18-28) is the August 2020 engagement booklet. It describes a Stanley Street transport hub, arterials stage 1, bus priority, and NZUP funding of $35m (town centre), $50m (arterials stage 1) and $90m (SH6/6A PT and active travel) (p.19). Feedback closed 31 August 2020.

B22 Engagement Report (September 2020, Final, Project No. 310201227) covers workshops (December 2018, February 2019, May 2020) and stakeholder meetings (p.32), the April 2019 Way to Go engagement and survey (pp.34-60, 82-141), the 3-31 August 2020 online engagement via Social PinPoint (pp.61-81), written submissions (pp.142-160) and an engagement register (pp.161-176). The report concludes that concerns centred on traffic signals along SH6A and Frankton and on town centre parking, and that positive comments related to PT, active travel and town centre upgrades (p.80).

Mass rapid transit: The Engagement Report records substantive public and stakeholder input on mass rapid transit. Stakeholder meetings were held with Remarkables Park ('Integrating with the gondola') and the Airport ('the gondola site') (p.32). At the April 2019 market events there was 'good support and recognition that one of these options [gondola, light rail or trackless tram] would be required in the medium term' (p.44), along with mixed post-it comments on mass rapid transit (pp.47, 49). In the online survey (Q19), 58.33% (84) preferred a high-capacity PT link on SH6A and 41.67% (60) mass rapid transit along Queenstown Hill (pp.52, 105). In Q26, 70.67% supported mass rapid transit terminals at regular intervals (p.114). QAC's submission asked what future-proofing was being done for mass rapid or high-frequency transit (p.148), and another submitter supported the mass rapid transit proposal, urging early planning (p.159). The engagement register lists 'Landowners Affected by Gondola Alignment' and 'Gondola Terminal' sites, notes a reserve where a corridor should 'ideally' be protected for the future (pp.168-169), and records QAC's agreement in principle to a 'gondola proof of concept to connect through airport to Remarkables Park' (p.174). The August 2020 booklet (B21) does not mention mass rapid transit. TN25 does not address MRT.

Key figures

  • Street design pedestrian wellbeing benefits $76.1m PV (inner $32.1m, outer $44.0m) at 4%, 30 years (p.8)
  • Arterials pedestrian benefits $30.9m PV at 4%/60yr; $17.0m at 6%/40yr (p.13)
  • Arterial benefit sensitivity range $13.1m-$52.9m PV (p.14)
  • Illustrative retail spending uplift 10-15% ($30-45m p.a.) on ~$300m base; property value uplift ~$50m, not claimed as benefits (p.4)
  • Modelled alternative mode share 40% at 2028 and 60% at 2048 under bus max plus parking measures (p.12)
  • NZUP funding cited: $35m town centre upgrades (QLDC contribution $22m), $50m arterials stage 1, $90m PT/active travel on SH6/6A (p.19)
  • April 2019 survey Q19: SH6A route 58.33% (84) vs gondola along Queenstown Hill 41.67% (60), n=144 (p.105)
  • April 2019 survey Q26: 70.67% (106) support gondola terminals at regular intervals, n=150 (p.114)

Rapid transit

Mass rapid transit means light rail, gondola/cable car, bus rapid transit and similar dedicated rapid-transit technologies. It does not include ordinary bus services or ferries.

Substantive. Discusses, assesses, recommends or programmes mass rapid transit.

Records community and stakeholder interest in Frankton-Queenstown mass rapid transit, including alignment and a proof of concept with the airport; makes no recommendation.

The B22 Engagement Report is the substantive MRT content. In April 2019, 'Frankton 2 Queenstown – Mass Transit' was one of three projects displayed, and there was 'good support and recognition that one of these options would be required in the medium term' (p.44). Online survey Q19 asked about 'a future high capacity public transport link between Frankton and Queenstown': 58.33% chose the SH6A route, which 'would require significant road widening', and 41.67% chose 'A gondola along Queenstown Hill' (pp.52, 105). In Q26, 70.67% supported mass rapid transit terminals at regular intervals (p.114). Stakeholder meetings covered integration with mass rapid transit (Remarkables Park) and mass rapid transit site (Airport) (p.32). QAC's submission asked about future-proofing for 'mass rapid or high frequency transit options' (p.148). The engagement register lists landowners affected by mass rapid transit alignment over Queenstown Hill and candidate mass rapid transit terminals. For QLDC reserve land the register says 'Ideally would look to protect corridor for the future' (p.169). It also records QAC agreement in principle to 'gondola proof of concept to connect through airport to Remarkables Park' (p.174) and Remarkables Park support (p.175). The August 2020 public booklet (B21) does not mention mass rapid transit.

"There was good support and recognition that one of these options would be required in the medium term." (p.44) | "Most respondents preferred using the existing route along SH6A (Frankton Road) for a high capacity public transport system – 58% of respondents, over a Gondola along Queenstown Hill. – 42% of respondents." (p.52) | "c) QAC would like to understand what future proofing is being undertaken to accommodate longer-term solutions (such as mass rapid or high frequency transit options) from Queenstown Town Centre to Frankton and/or Queenstown Airport." (p.148) | "Gondola and property not discussed with QLDC Property Team as this option not favoured. Ideally would look to protect corridor for the future." (p.169) | "PT connections close to the terminal door, including gondola proof of concept to connect through airport to Remarkables Park." (p.174)

Files

Actions recorded

No actions are recorded on this document.

Study cost

A study cost has been requested under the Official Information Act or LGOIMA. No figure has been received.

Citation

NZTA (Waka Kotahi). Appendix B19 Technical Note 25: VURT Analysis (with Appendix B20 Proposed Speed Limits, B21 Way to Go Engagement Booklet and B22 Engagement Report) (2020). NZTA Contract 2018235; Stantec Project No. 310201227.

Spotted an error in this entry? Tell us