QTS-093 · Business case chapter or appendix · 2024Draft
Queenstown Public Transport Business Case – Advisory Papers (compiled: Public Transport Hubs and Infrastructure; Service Patterns; System Management; Park & Ride; On-Demand Services; Ownership and Operating Model; Fleet Decarbonisation; Sustainable Funding Model; Forecast Demand)
Marked 'Confidential' by its author. Publicly released by ORC on April 2024.
Part of: Rapid transit evidence →
Nine WSP advisory papers prepared for Otago Regional Council (one for 'Way to Go') that support the Queenstown Public Transport Business Case. They cover public transport hubs and infrastructure, service patterns, system management, park and ride, on-demand services, ownership and operating models, fleet decarbonisation, sustainable funding, and forecast demand, including the demand-modelling methodology and technical note. Key findings: standard buses cannot meet future SH6A demand; articulated buses are the most feasible vehicle; a Bus Max network is the likely optimum; battery electric technology is preferred; a roughly 10,000 m2 electric depot is needed, ideally publicly owned, in Frankton or Coneburn; and congestion charging and developer contributions are the most promising extra funding sources. On mass transit, the service patterns paper compares mass rapid transit capacity once and finds it sufficient only at 240 departures per hour. The modelling brief lists a 'gondola versus no gondola' sensitivity and the PT model includes an MRT (off-road corridor) mode, but no mass rapid transit or MRT results are reported: MRT patronage is zero in every 2053 output table. The model concludes that even a high bus mode share would not bring the road network within capacity and that a 'new system (e.g. cable-based system)' could carry the target volumes. The hubs paper sets a trigger for investigating off-line PT.
What the document says
Context and purpose: WSP was commissioned by ORC under a Consultant Agreement of 22 July 2022 (contract TCTB1) to prepare the Queenstown Public Transport Business Case. These nine advisory papers (project 6-XO014.00) underpin it (p12, p393). The compiled PDF contains, in order: Public Transport Hubs and Infrastructure (p1-92), Service Patterns (p93-195), System Management (p196-218), Park & Ride (p219-258), On-Demand Services (p259-284), Ownership and Operating Model (p285-303), Fleet Decarbonisation (p304-364), Sustainable Funding Model (p365-387) and Forecast Demand with its modelling appendices (p388-473).
Forecast demand and modelling: Updated QLDC land-use projections (November 2022) via Abley's TRACKS update show fewer households, tourists and jobs than the earlier business case (p394). To keep links at 90% v/c, AM peak PT is needed on SH6A at 27% (2027), 40% (2039) and 47% (2053), and on Kawarau Falls Bridge at 53% by 2053 (about 1,700 passengers per hour) (p395). The PT model is a simplified Excel logit mode-choice model run on TRACKS matrices and has no crowding or capacity constraint (p412, p416, p448). Thirteen short-list options (Bus Max, a split JP/RP version and a Jack's Point Spine, with ferry, PT bridge, Malaghans and northbound bus lane variants) were tested (p449-450). Bus Max with a split service and Malaghans routing was the likely optimum (p451). Even the preferred option falls short of targets: for example, 2053 westbound SH6A AM is 1,281 predicted against 1,466 needed, and Shotover Bridge is less than half its target (p452). Abundant parking at Frankton Flats is cited as a factor (p452).
Service patterns: An 11-option long list (Bus Max variants, rapid transit (bus) spines, a one-seat network, two ferries and a jet boat) was narrowed to four (p103, p159). Standard buses cannot meet demand even at 30 buses per hour on SH6A (p102). A capacity matrix finds articulated buses at 20 departures per hour or bi-articulated at 15 meet the 2053 target of 1,700 per hour (p151-152). Articulated buses are recommended (p102). Continuous PT priority on SH6A is described as difficult because of space constraints, making traffic flow on SH6A critical to bus reliability (p192).
Hubs and infrastructure: Minor design changes let the Stanley Street and Frankton hubs take articulated buses (p10, p43). Preferred interchanges are on SH6 near Grant Road (Five Mile) and on Hawthorne Drive near Tex Smith Lane (p10). A Boyd Road–Red Oaks Drive PT bridge and SH6 northbound bus lanes are documented (p9, p15-16). Up to 56 articulated and seven standard buses need a depot of about 10,000 m2, preferably in Frankton with Coneburn as the alternative (p64-67, p91).
Other papers: System Management recommends that ORC partner with the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust to fund affordable rental housing for PT staff (p201). Park & Ride recommended sites at Speargrass Flat and Cromwell as supplementary add-ons (p225-226), but the business case later excluded park and ride. On-Demand recommends investigating a Queenstown Hill/Goldfields service (p280). Ownership recommends public (or third-party) ownership of the depot, with operator-owned fleet and contracted operations (p302). Fleet Decarbonisation recommends battery electric buses (p322). Sustainable Funding puts 2039 operating costs at $19.3m–$29.8m a year ($25m for the preferred option). It finds the Boyd Road bridge unaffordable for QLDC, and congestion charging and developer contributions the most promising funding sources (p370).
Conclusion of the modelling: 'the model predicts a high PT share... But this would be not sufficient to result in the road network operating within capacity' (p454). Target volumes above 1,500 per hour could be carried by higher-capacity buses, which will 'reach a maximum practical capacity shortly after 2053', or 'by the addition of a new system (e.g. cable-based system)'. These would be combined with parking management, road user or congestion charging, land-use change and home-working (p454).
Mass rapid transit: The methodology statement (14 October 2022), the Forecast Demand paper and the technical note all list 'Range of mass transit options (i.e. gondola)' among interventions the model would test. They also list a 'gondola versus no gondola' sensitivity, which appears three times (p404, p412-413, p418). The model can represent 'Off-road corridors (e.g. gondola, ferry)' (p409, p448), and an MRT (off-road corridor) mode is built into its cost and choice structure (p422, p424-425). No mass rapid transit option appears among the 13 tested options (p450). In the Appendix F 2053 five-point summaries, all 30 MRT rows (three periods, five screenlines, two directions) show 0 passengers and 0% in all 13 options (p470-473). No sensitivity results are reported anywhere. The only mass rapid transit assessment is the service patterns capacity matrix: 10 passengers per cabin (8 planning), and sufficient 'only when operating a very high frequencies (240 departures per hour or 15 sec headway)', a frequency the table bands as 'too high' (p151-152). The Hubs paper sets the off-line trigger (p11, p34).
Key figures
- Critical PT share to keep links at 90% v/c (AM): SH6A 27% (2027), 40% (2039), 47% (2053); Kawarau Falls Bridge 53% by 2053, about 1,700 passengers/hour (p395)
- 2053 AM westbound SH6A (Suburb): target 1,466 vs predicted 1,281 PT passengers; Shotover Bridge westbound target 772 vs predicted 358 (p452)
- 2053 capacity matrix (Table 16): gondola 10 max / 8 planning passengers per cabin; 1,920 pph at 240 departures/hour; articulated bus 110/88 per vehicle (p152)
- Appendix F 2053 five-point summaries: MRT = 0 passengers and 0% in all 30 rows for all 13 options; park and ride also 0 (p470-473)
- 13 short-list options tested in PT model (Table 20, p450); 11 long-list service pattern options (p159)
- Depot for up to 56 articulated and 7 standard buses; about 10,000 m2 (p64, p67)
- 2039 operating costs $19.3m–$29.8m p.a. across short-list options; preferred option $25m p.a. with fare revenue $8.7m (p370)
- Capital funding split: ORC $29m; QLDC $1.8m–$29.9m; NZTA $24.8m–$54.0m depending on option (p370)
- Whakatipu Park & Ride Facility $1,937,000 not in draft LTP 2024-2034; Queenstown PT Interchange $12,203,000 – off-road interchange 'could be required if offline public transport route is adopted' (p380)
- Spatial Plan average-day population 51,000 (2021) to 120,000 (2051); peak day 103,000 to 204,000 (p394)
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.
A mass rapid transit capacity test was briefed once, but no results were reported and mass rapid transit was zero in the outputs.
Was the 'gondola versus no gondola' sensitivity / MRT mode run? On the evidence in these papers, no results were reported and the MRT class was not active in any reported run. The modelling brief (methodology statement v3, Matthew Gatenby, 14 October 2022) says the simplified model would allow a 'Range of mass transit options (i.e. gondola), which also have route, stop and capacity variations'. It says sensitivities would follow, including 'Gondola versus no Gondola' (p412-413), and the same wording recurs in the Forecast Demand paper (p404) and the technical note (p418). The model structure includes 'MRT (off-road corridor)' links and generalised cost (p422, p424-425). However, the 13 short-list options contain no mass rapid transit/MRT variant (p450), and every MRT row in the 2053 AM, interpeak and PM five-point summaries is 0 passengers / 0% for all options (p470-473). The only mass rapid transit assessment is in Service Patterns: 'Gondola can provide sufficient capacity but only when operating a very high frequencies (240 departures per hour or 15 sec headway)' (p151). Table 16 assumes 8 planning passengers per cabin and bands 60+ departures per hour as 'Frequency too high' (p152). Mass rapid transit is not in the 11-option long list (p159). The technical note concludes that buses would not bring the road network within capacity and names 'the addition of a new system (e.g. cable-based system)' (p454). The Hubs paper sets a trigger for investigating off-line PT, recommends integrating any off-line solution into network design (p11), and finds an off-line Frankton interchange unnecessary unless an off-line route is built (p10).
"Gondola can provide sufficient capacity but only when operating a very high frequencies (240 departures per hour or 15 sec headway)." (p.151) | "Range of mass transit options (i.e. gondola), which also have route, stop and capacity variations" (p.412) | "it is expected that initial runs will determine the likely service / route / frequency / system requirements, from which sensitivities can be assessed (P&R system versus no P&R system; Gondola versus no Gondola; Higher/lower Residential growth sensitivities etc)" (p.412-413) | "In summary, the model predicts a high PT share (by traditional NZ levels) would be achieved by 2053... But this would be not sufficient to result in the road network operating within capacity." (p.454) | "These levels could be accommodated by PT – either using higher-capacity buses (albeit this system will also reach a maximum practical capacity shortly after 2053), or by the addition of a new system (e.g. cable-based system)" (p.454) | "Therefore, a potential trigger for investigating an off-line public transport solution would be when it is no longer feasible to hold traffic back in Frankton." (p.11) | "It is recommended that an offline solution is integrated into the design of the public transport network to avoid forced transfers where possible." (p.11)
Files
- Open Main document (PDF, 25 MB) Opens in a new tab.
Main document
Large file — 25 MB
Public copies
Publisher’s own file.
Actions recorded
Investigate an off-line public transport solution when it is no longer feasible to hold traffic back in Frankton (e.g. excessive queuing delaying buses).
Not assessed · Trigger-based · Relevant to rapid transit
a potential trigger for investigating an off-line public transport solution would be when it is no longer feasible to hold traffic back in Frankton
Integrate any offline solution into the design of the public transport network to avoid forced transfers where possible.
Not assessed · Relevant to rapid transit
It is recommended that an offline solution is integrated into the design of the public transport network
Pursue additional measures to reach target PT volumes: higher-capacity buses or a new system (e.g. cable-based), parking supply and cost management, road user or congestion charging, and land-use change.
Not assessed · By 2053 · Relevant to rapid transit
To achieve this would likely take additional measures
Incorporate articulated-bus modifications into the NZUP Frankton hub design now; design option 1 preferred; move SH6 stops closer to the pedestrian crossing.
Not assessed · Now
They should be incorporated into the NZUP designs now rather than waiting until a later date
Investigate an interim bus layover on Memorial Street for Stanley Street hub operations; extend the Jack's Point route to One Mile after Arterials stage 3.
Not assessed · Interim / after Arterials stage 3
An interim bus layover on Memorial Street should be investigated
Identify a depot site: engage Aurora on grid capacity, engage Frankton and Coneburn landowners, and carry out due diligence once ownership is confirmed.
Not assessed · After business case endorsement
the next steps to identify a preferred location would be: Engage with Aurora
Conduct a technical assessment of the Remarkables Park (Boyd Road) bridge and alternatives such as SH6 bus lanes south of Kawarau Falls.
Not assessed
recommended that a technical assessment on the feasibility of Remarkables Park Bridge and considering alternatives
Publicly consult on the Bus Max and Rapid Transit to Jack's Point options, with Malaghans Road as an add-on.
Not assessed
recommended the Bus Max and Rapid Transit to Jacks Point base options to be publicly consulted on
Show all 15 actions
Partner with the Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust (or similar) to fund affordable rental accommodation for public transport staff.
Not assessed · ORC · Before new network
it is recommended that Otago Regional Council partners with Queenstown Lakes Community Housing Trust
Minimise split shifts and improve driver facilities at termini to support recruitment and retention of drivers.
Not assessed
Other support measures for hiring and retaining bus drivers is to minimise split shifts
Provide park and ride at Speargrass Flat and Cromwell as a supplemental add-on to the preferred service pattern (later excluded from the business case's preferred option).
Not assessed
A park and ride service, if provided, is recommended as a supplemental add-on
Further investigate an on-demand service for Queenstown Hill and Goldfields, triggered by further development such as Silver Creek subdivision.
Not assessed · Trigger-based
recommended that an on-demand service for Queenstown Hill and Goldfields is considered for further investigation
Adopt public ownership of the electric bus depot (third-party investor as second option), retain operator-owned fleet and performance-based operating contracts.
Not assessed · ORC
public ownership of the bus depot is the recommended ownership model
Further consider battery electric buses as the preferred technology, and plan electricity network and grid reinforcement early.
Not assessed · Short term
recommended to further consider battery electric buses as the preferred technology
Fund the ORC depot through debt; amend QLDC's development contributions policy; pursue congestion charging, which requires legislative change.
Not assessed · QLDC
congestion charging and developer contributions have the greatest potential as a funding source
Study cost
A study cost has been requested under the Official Information Act or LGOIMA. No figure has been received.
Citation
ORC, Way to Go partnership. Queenstown Public Transport Business Case – Advisory Papers (compiled: Public Transport Hubs and Infrastructure; Service Patterns; System Management; Park & Ride; On-Demand Services; Ownership and Operating Model; Fleet Decarbonisation; Sustainable Funding Model; Forecast Demand) (2024). WSP Project Number 6-XO014.00 (Consultant Agreement / Contract TCTB1 dated 22 July 2022).