wellington cycleway feasibility study - island bay to cbd...

Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study

Island Bay to CBD Preliminary Funding Report

Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study- Island Bay to CBD i

| May 2013 Opus International Consultants Ltd

Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................1

1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Study Scope ............................................................................................................................ 5

2 Strategic Policy Context ...................................................................................... 7

2.1 National Policy & Plans ......................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Regional Policy ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Policy Conclusions................................................................................................................ 11

3 NZTA Assessment Framework .......................................................................... 12

4 Cycleway Scheme Objectives .............................................................................14

5 Corridor Description ......................................................................................... 15

5.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................... 15

5.2 Land-use ...............................................................................................................................16

5.3 Road Network .......................................................................................................................19

5.4 Existing Commuter Cycle Trends....................................................................................... 25

5.5 Crash History ....................................................................................................................... 27

6 Design Philosophy ............................................................................................ 32

6.1 Commuter Cyclist User Priorities ...................................................................................... 33

6.2 Wellington Specific Cyclist Route Choice Considerations................................................ 34

6.3 Facility Types & Standards ................................................................................................. 36

7 Cycleway Routes & Treatments Considered ...................................................... 37

7.1 Section 1 ............................................................................................................................... 37

7.2 Section 2 ............................................................................................................................... 44

7.3 Section 3 ............................................................................................................................... 53

7.4 Preferred Cycleway Route & Treatments ........................................................................... 62

8 Cost Estimates & Efficiency Forecasts .............................................................. 63

8.1 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 63

8.2 Economic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 65

9 NZTA Funding Assessment Profile ................................................................... 70

10 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 72

10.1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 72

10.2 Recommended Investment Strategy .................................................................................. 74

10.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 75

10.4 Recommendations............................................................................................................... 75

Appendix A ................................................................................................................. A

Appendix B ................................................................................................................. B

Appendix C ................................................................................................................. C

Appendix D ............................................................................................................... D

Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study- Island Bay to CBD ii


Figure 1: Overview of Study Area Considered ......................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Short to Medium-Term Impacts (GPS July 2011, Page 7) ..................................................... 8

Figure 3: Congestion typically observed down Adelaide Road (Looking South towards Newtown) .14

Figure 4: Cross-Section of Study Corridor ............................................................................................. 15

Figure 5: Study Corridor Elevation ......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6: Key land-use features of the study area ................................................................................. 17

Figure 7: Forecast Population Growth (Left) and Employment Growth (Right) ............................... 18

Figure 8: Basic Principal of a Road Hierarchy .......................................................................................19

Figure 9: Modified Version of “Hierarchy of Roads”, Map 33 WCC District Plan (Left) & the Study

Corridor AADT’s (Right) ........................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 10: Gradient of the WCC Road Network..................................................................................... 21

Figure 11: Location & Characteristics of key roads in Section 1 of Study Corridor ............................ 22

Figure 12: Location of key Road links within Section 2 of Study Corridor ......................................... 23

Figure 13: Location of key Road links within Section 3 of Study Corridor ......................................... 24

Figure 14: WCC Cycle-Counts 2003-2012 at Adelaide Road / John Street Intersection .................. 26

Figure 15: Cycle Crash Location in Study Area ..................................................................................... 27

Figure 16: Time of day crashes have occurred ...................................................................................... 30

Figure 17: Examples of On-road Cycle Facility (left) & Shared Use Cycle Path (Right) .................... 36

Figure 18: Section 1 Routes – Option 1-A .............................................................................................. 39

Figure 19: Section 1 Routes – Option 1-B, 1-C & 1-D ............................................................................ 40

Figure 20: Elevated Plans of Route 1 Options .......................................................................................41

Figure 21: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-A ............................................................................................. 45

Figure 22: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-B ............................................................................................ 46

Figure 23: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-C ............................................................................................ 47

Figure 24: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-D & Option 2-E ..................................................................... 48

Figure 25: Elevated Plans of Route 2 Options ...................................................................................... 49

Figure 26: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-A ............................................................................................ 55

Figure 27: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-B ............................................................................................. 56

Figure 28: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-C ............................................................................................ 57

Figure 29: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-D ............................................................................................ 58

Figure 30: Elevated Plans of Route 3 Options ...................................................................................... 59

Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study- Island Bay to CBD iii


Table 1: RLTS Outcomes, Targets & Actions aligning with the Island Bay to CBD Cycleway ............. 9

Table 2: WCC Outcomes aligning with the Island Bay to CBD Cycleway ........................................... 10

Table 3: Funding Assessment Framework for New Walking & Cycling Projects ................................ 13

Table 4: Roads of Interest on Corridor Section 1 .................................................................................. 22

Table 5: Roads of Interest on Corridor Section 2 ................................................................................. 23

Table 6: Roads of Interest on Corridor Section 2 ................................................................................. 25

Table 7: Two-hour peak totals recorded each survey period at Newtown Site (07:00-09:00) ......... 26

Table 8: Breakdown of Cycle Crashes by Study Area Section .............................................................. 28

Table 9: Study Area (All Sections) Cycle Crashes 2007-2012 .............................................................. 29

Table 10: Wellington City (Urban) Comparison Cycle Crashes 2007-2012 ....................................... 29

Table 11: Road Users Involved in Cycle Crashes ................................................................................... 29

Table 12: Intersection / Midblock Comparison .................................................................................... 30

Table 13: Crash Movement by Severity .................................................................................................. 31

Table 14: Categories of cyclists and their characteristics (Adapted Austroads AP-G88-11 Page 9) .. 32

Table 15: Cyclists User Needs (Adopted “LTSA Cycle Network & Route Planning Guide Page 23”) 33

Table 16: Cycling Stages of Change (Adapted from LTNZ Research Report 294, Table 4.1&4.2) .... 34

Table 17: Cycle Facility Dimensions Adopted ....................................................................................... 36

Table 18: Summary of Estimates ........................................................................................................... 65

Table 19: Forecast Daily Trips on the cycleway .................................................................................... 66

Table 20: Cyclist Injury Totals on defined corridor (01/07/2007 – 01/07/2012) ............................. 67

Table 21: BCR values for Central Corridor & Combination Option..................................................... 68

Table 22: First Year Rate of Return ....................................................................................................... 68

Table 23: Sensitivity Tests on Preferred Option BCR (note rounding) ............................................... 69

Table 24: NZTA Funding Criteria Assessment ..................................................................................... 70

Table 25: Priority of Activities................................................................................................................. 71

Table 26: Project Rating ......................................................................................................................... 75

Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study- Island Bay to CBD iv


Wellington Cycleway Feasibility Study- Island Bay to CBD 1


Executive Summary

Opus International Consultants has been commissioned by Wellington City Council (WCC) to

complete a cycleway feasibility study for a corridor linking the Wellington suburb of Island Bay and

the Central Business District (CBD).

This report documents the development of a preferred cycleway facility. The feasibility of the

project is closely linked to its ability to attract government funding from the New Zealand

Transport Agency (NZTA). For such reasons the options have been assessed against NZTA’s

funding criteria. NZTA seek to support walking and cycling proposals that align with the

Government funding priorities set out in the Government Policy Statement (GPS). NZTA will

therefore prioritise funding towards cycling schemes that:

• Provide an option for travelling to work in large urban congested cities;

• Attract new commuter cyclists; and / or

• Improve the safety of existing cyclists.

This study has demonstrated that the creation of a cycleway linking Island Bay and Wellington

CBD would have a “High” strategic fit with these objectives. In order to provide a facility that is

highly effective in achieving these objectives, options have been developed and assessed against

their ability to attract new and maintain existing commuter cyclists. New and existing cyclists have

varying priorities expected from a cycleway. In carrying out this study, research obtained by the

project team1 has identified that the best way to effectively cater for both cycle user groups within

the context of Wellington’s road network is to provide a facility that feels safe, is flat and direct.

Option Development

The study team broke down the corridor into three sections. The existing physical characteristics

and constraints for cycling in each section were identified. Given the constraints and the desires of

the two cycle user groups a series of alternative treatment and route options were then developed.

The options looked to address existing barriers to cycling as a commuter mode in the corridor.

Treatment options considered on the routes developed included traffic calming, on-road cycle

lanes, shared use paths and Copenhagen lanes2. Examples of on-road cycle lanes and shared-paths

are shown in Figure ES1. The routes considered in the three sections are shown in Figure ES2.

Figure ES1: Examples of On-road Cycle Facility (left) & Shared Use Cycle Path (Right)3

1 J.Beetham, (2013), School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences Victoria University of Wellington. 2 Copenhagen lanes are segregated cycle lanes separated from vehicle and pedestrian traffic by raised kerbs. 3 Source: New Zealand Supplement to the Austroads guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14: Bicycles, page iii.



Figure ES2: Routes considered on Section 1 (left), Section 2 (Centre) & Section 3 (Right)

Cambridge /

Kent Tce

Hanson St

The Parade

Adelaide Rd

Tasman St

Tory St

Adelaide Rd

Reef St



Option Assessment

Based on the flatness, directness and safety criteria specified, an assessment of the route and

treatment options proposed was completed. The project team concluded that the following

components as shown in Table ES1 should make up the preferred “Combination Option” as they

are able to achieve a “High” rating against NZTA’s effectiveness criteria. An on-road treatment was

recommended due to low costs and because it had the least effect on parking, property and

adjacent land-use activities.

Table ES1: Preferred “Combination Option” Summary

Name Section Description

Option 1-A

Reef Street and The Parade up until the Adelaide Road / Dee Street Roundabout

Enhance and extend existing cycle lanes so continuous facility provided in each direction through the full length of the section.

Possibility of revisions to on-street parking arrangements at Island Bay shops to maintain a continuous cycle facility.

Option 2-A Follows Adelaide Road from Dee Street through to John Street.

Provide on-road cycle lanes in each direction requiring the loss of on-street parking. Improvements to intersections with safety features such as advanced cycle stop boxes provided.

Option 3-A Uses Adelaide Road and Kent / Cambridge Terrace to reach the CBD

Cater for cyclists in existing bus lanes in each direction.

Option 2-D Follows Stoke Street and Hanson Street.

Quiet-Street route for new / unconfident cyclists provided by cycle directional signing, low-intervention traffic calming (e.g. measures to visually narrow the roads) and treatments to highlight the presence of cyclists between Stoke Street and Hanson Street;

Option 3-C Uses Tasman Street and Tory Street to reach the CBD

Quiet-Street route for new / unconfident cyclists continuation of Option 2-D measures on Tasman Street until Rugby Street. North of Rugby Street, road space should be re-allocated to provide a southbound cycle lane on the eastern side of Tory and Tasman Streets.

Expected Cost for Preferred Option: $4.50 Million

An economic efficiency assessment was then completed. The number of current and anticipated

users was forecast. 439 existing cyclists on the route are projected. Following completion of the

cycleway 400 new users are forecast. By considering Health, Safety and Travel Time benefits the

economic efficiency of the proposal was determined to be 3.7. The option can be considered to have

a “Medium” Economic Efficiency Rating. Based on these results it is proposed that the scheme

receives the following NZTA funding assessment profile as shown in the Table ES2 below.

Table ES2: Activity Profile

Category Rating

Strategic Fit High

Effectiveness High

Efficiency Medium

Rating HHM Category 2



Conclusions

This study has developed an improvement scheme that will cater to the needs of both new and

existing cyclists. The cycling corridor has a high strategic fit with the Government’s policy

objectives. The study has investigated a wide range of alternatives and recommended a scheme that

will achieve the policy outcomes effectively attaining value for money. With the efficiency of the

scheme confirmed as being able to generate a BCR of 3.7 a funding profile rating of 2 should be

assigned. Given these findings it is recommended that the project is continued to the next stage of

development where the following activities should occur:

• Develop detailed designs and identify the preferred “Combination Option”;

• Consultation with affected stakeholders; and

• Refinement of the cost estimates.



1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Opus International Consultants (Opus) has been commissioned by Wellington City Council

(WCC) to complete a cycleway feasibility study for a corridor linking the Wellington suburb

of Island Bay and the Central Business District (CBD).

This report documents the development of a preferred route and cycleway facility (the

scheme). The feasibility of the scheme is closely linked to its ability to attract government

funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). For such reasons the scheme has

been assessed against NZTA’s funding criteria. This approach will allow WCC to prioritise

the implementation of different cycleway projects and have sufficient information to

prepare a funding application.

1.2 Study Scope

The scope of this study is to develop and determine whether the scheme is feasible on the

6.1km section between Island Bay and the CBD as defined in Figure 1 (overleaf). The

scheme will allow for improved cycle travel either through or around some of the most

congested parts of Wellington City. The study area is a highly utilised commuter corridor. It

connects Wellington’s southern suburbs to the CBD, passing through or nearby a number of

local shopping precincts and key institutions such as Wellington Hospital and Massey

University. A high demand for travel is exhibited through the study area. To ensure that the

best cycle route and facility possible can be provided, the study scope of works has included:

• Determining the alignment of the study with national, regional and local policy;

• A review of NZTA’s “Assessment Framework” to define the essential funding

requirements the study must comply with;

• Setting the cycleway scheme objectives given the policy and funding needs;

• Assessment of the study area characteristics;

• Development of various routes, treatment options & their assessment;

• Forecasting new users attracted to the scheme; and

• Assessment of the scheme against NZTA’s funding “Assessment Framework”.

The study has been completed on the assumption that both the Memorial Park Underpass

situated at Buckle Street and the Basin Reserve Overbridge will be constructed in the near

future. Development of the Adelaide Road growth node between the Basin Reserve and

John Street is not yet confirmed but has been considered as part of the study.



Figure 1: Overview of Study Area Considered

Study Area



2 Strategic Policy Context

2.1 National Policy & Plans

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (the Act) is the main statute for New Zealand’s

land transport planning and funding system. The purpose of the Act is to contribute to

achieving an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system.

The Act requires that a Government Policy Statement (GPS) be issued by the Minister of

Transport every three years. This enables the Minister to guide NZTA and the land

transport sector on the outcomes, objectives, and the short to medium-term impacts that

the crown wishes to achieve. Longer term government objectives are addressed in the New

Zealand Transport Strategy 2008 (NZTS). While not a statutory document, the NZTS sets

out a series of aspirational targets for land transport in 2040. As the NZTS was developed

by the previous government and prior to the global financial crisis, the GPS is currently the

primary document for land transport decision makers. However, the Act requires NZTA to

at a minimum assess all projects against the GPS and the five NZTS objectives:

• Assisting economic development;

• Assisting safety and personal security;

• Improving access and mobility;

• Protect and promote public health; and

• Ensure environmental sustainability

Providing a project that aligns well with the above objectives and those listed by the current

GPS is a fundamental requirement of any funding application. Alignment of the Island Bay

to CBD cycleway against these national policy documents is described in the remainder of

Chapter 2.1.

2.1.1 Land Transport Management Act Objectives

• Assisting economic development

A new cycleway between Island Bay and the CBD has the potential to make the CBD and

the employment opportunities located within it more accessible for both the financially

disadvantaged and those without private vehicles.

• Assist safety and personal security

A new cycleway has the potential to enhance cycle safety along the 6.1 km study

corridor. On-road facilities typically see a reduction of between 10-20% in the number

of cycle related injury crashes4. If completely separated facilities are provided the cycle

safety benefits that can be captured will be even higher.

• Improve access and mobility

The cycleway will not enhance access and mobility for freight. However, it could

improve access to schools and educational establishments such as Massey University.

4 NZTA’ Economic Evaluation Manual Chapter A6



• Protect and promote public health

The cycleway has the potential to protect and promote public health by providing a

facility which will encourage active mode travel. Cycling has a number of health benefits

generated by the undertaking of physical activity. These benefits would be realised by

the new cyclists attracted to the facility.

• Ensure environmental sustainability

The installation of a cycleway has the ability to encourage people to cycle rather than

travel by vehicle. A reduction in vehicle trips will improve congestion and energy

efficiencies from stop/start movements characteristic of the study corridor during peak

travel times. Through reductions in fuel consumption travel through the corridor may

become more sustainable.

2.1.2 Government Policy Statement (GPS)

The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding 2012/13 – 2021/22 (July

2011) presents the Government’s desired outcomes and funding priorities for the

National Land Transport Fund (NLTF). At present economic growth and productivity is

a key priority for the Government. For this reason the GPS lists three areas of focus:

• Economic growth and productivity;

• Value for money; and

• Road safety.

In achieving these focus areas the impacts listed in Figure 2 should be met through the

allocation of funding from the NLTF. In accordance with the reasons detailed in Chapter

2.1.1, allocating funding for the cycleway will address the majority of the short to

medium term impacts the Government wishes to achieve from its funding priorities.

Figure 2: Short to Medium-Term Impacts (GPS July 2011, Page 7)



2.1.3 Safer Journeys – New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020

“Safer Journeys” is the National strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the

period 2010-2020. It contains the long-term goal for road safety in New Zealand of

achieving “A safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury”. One

priority area of road safety is for “safe walking and cycling” journeys. The Island Bay to

CBD cycleway can align with the Strategy by:

“Providing safe and convenient routes for pedestrians and cyclists, especially to and

from work and school” (Safer Journeys, Page 39).

2.2 Regional Policy

2.2.1 Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy (September 2010)

The Wellington Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 (RLTS) guides the development

of the regions transport system (including public transport, roads, walking, cycling and

freight) for the next ten years and beyond. It provides an overall context for investment.

The RLTS identifies a number of key outcomes which the region seeks to achieve. A

series of targets and actions have subsequently been developed for all the RLTS

outcomes. Those outcomes and key actions relevant to the study are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: RLTS Outcomes, Targets & Actions aligning with the Island Bay to CBD Cycleway

RLTS Outcome 2020 Strategic Target Key Actions

(2.1) Increased mode share for pedestrians & cyclists

• Increase active mode use to at least 30% of all trips in urban areas;

• Active modes account for at least 16% of region wide journey to work trips.

• Improve walking and cycling facilities;

• Advocate for higher priority of pedestrian and cyclist road safety funding.

(2.2) Improved level of service for pedestrians and cyclists

• 70% of people report a “good” or “neither good nor bad” level of service for the strategic cycle network

• Provide quality footpaths and cyclist facilities

(2.3) Increased safety for pedestrians & cyclists

• A reduction in the number of cyclist casualties to no more than 110 per annum.

• Improve cycling networks

• Advocate for adequate government funding.

(3.1-3) Reduced greenhouse gas emissions; private car mode share & fuel consumption

• Transport generated CO2 emissions will be maintained below year 2001 levels.

• Improve & promote mode shift to public transport, walking and cycling.

(4.1) Reduced severe road congestion

• Average congestion on selected roads well remain below 2003 levels despite traffic growth.

• Advocate for mode shift.

(5.1) Improved regional road safety

• There are no crashes attributable to roading network deficiencies; Continuous reduction in the number of killed and seriously injured on the regions roads.

• Improve walking and cycling safety.



2.2.2 Wellington Regional Cycling Plan (December 2008)

The Regional Cycling Plan (2008) responds to the issues and policy framework set out

in the RLTS. It sets out an action programme with a series of high level initiatives

developed to contribute towards the RLTS outcomes, targets and actions detailed in

Section 2.2.1. This includes reviewing, addressing any identified deficiencies and

expanding the cycle network in accordance recognised best practice guidelines by

considering:

• Road space allocation;

• Surface quality and maintenance;

• Route directness and connectivity;

• Signage and information;

• Vehicle traffic speeds and parking restrictions;

• Crash and risk statistics;

• Cycle parking and storage facilities;

• Cycle priority measures;

• Segregated cycle facilities on high speed/high volume routes; and

• Integration with public transport systems.

The Island Bay to CBD cycleway can align with the Regional Cycling Plan by considering

the above issues in its design and development. This will assist in the cycleway achieving

the recognised RLTS outcomes.

2.2.3 WCC Transport Strategy 2006

The WCC Transport Strategy provides the ten year direction and strategic vision for

transport activities in Wellington City. Table 2 lists long term outcomes relevant to the

Island Bay to CBD cycleway project. The Cycleway project could positively contribute

towards the realisation of these key outcomes by providing a facility that will encourage

mode shift away from private vehicle use.

Table 2: WCC Outcomes aligning with the Island Bay to CBD Cycleway

WCC Outcome Outcome Alignment with Cycleway Project

2.3 More Sustainable: Wellington will minimise the environmental effects of transport and support the environmental strategy;

• Increasing the use of low-energy transport options

2.4(a) Better connected: Wellington will have a highly interconnected public transport, road and street system that supports its urban development and social strategies;

• A well connected system of local roads and streets, footpaths and cycleways.

2.4(b) Healthier: Wellingtons Transport system will contribute to healthy communities and social interaction

• Promoting walking and cycling and reduced dependence on motor vehicles for short trips through the travel demand management programme.



2.2.4 WCC Cycling Policy 2008

The “WCC Cycling Policy 2008” is a component of the overall transport plan set out in

the “Transport Strategy 2006”. The Cycling Policy “creates a framework for the

development of infrastructure and measures to improve the safety and convenience of

cycling and cycling facilities”. The Policy is built on six specified objectives:

• To improve cycle safety throughout Wellington;

• To improve the convenience of cycling in Wellington;

• To improve the experience of cycle trips to and from the Central Area;

• To improve the experience of cycle trips to and from Suburban Centres;

• To improve the experience of cycle trips to and from educational centres; and

• To improve the experience of cycle trips for recreation.

The proposed Island Bay to CBD cycleway is well aligned with these objectives and the

overarching Transport Strategy it supplements.

2.2.5 WCC Adelaide Road Framework 2008

The cycleway also helps achieve the vision outlined in the “Adelaide Road Framework

2008”. Having a designated facility for cyclists within the vicinity of Adelaide Road will:

• Make Adelaide Road safer for cyclists and more cycle friendly;

• Better connected for people to access areas of work and living; and

• Result in reduced mode conflicts.

2.3 Policy Conclusions

The concept of the Island Bay to CBD cycleway project has been assessed against national,

regional and local strategic policy. Clearly the project demonstrates the potential to

correlate strongly with the desires and aspirations of all levels of governance. A number of

common themes have been identified across these policies, highlighting the need for the

cycleway to:

• Ease congestion between Island bay and the CBD which will help to reduce vehicle

emissions;

• Reduce death and serious injury through the provision of new or improved cycle

facilities;

• Make it easier for residents along the study corridor to access employment

opportunities and retail areas, particularly people that may be unable to afford to travel

by car or by bus.

• Make better use of existing transport capacity available on the city road network;

• Remove barriers to cycling that will increase the amount of choice in ways to travel and

propensity for change. This may be through the removal of perceived discomfort or

danger;

• Reduce reliance on one form of transport to improve the resilience of the wider

transport network; and

• Encourage more regular cycling to improve public health.



3 NZTA Assessment Framework

Under the Act, NZTA is responsible for allocating funds from the NLTF for investment

activities set by the Government. Territorial Authorities such as WCC can gain funding from

the NLTF if they successfully demonstrate to NZTA that a project can achieve value for

money. Value for money is generally defined as a means of selecting the right things to do

(Strategic Fit), implementing them in the right way (Effectiveness), at the right time and for

the right price (Economic Efficiency)5.

To demonstrate value for money a project must be assessed against NZTA’s funding

Assessment Framework. The Assessment Framework uses a ranking system of “High”,

“Medium” or “Low” against the Strategic Fit, Effectiveness and Economic Efficiency criteria

which are defined as follows:

• Strategic Fit

A strategic fit assessment considers how an identified problem, issue or opportunity

aligns with the NZTA’s strategic investment direction without considering the possible

solution. The investment direction is derived from the GPS. Strategic fit assessments

and the criteria within them are specific to “activity classes”. Walking and cycling is

considered to be a single “activity class”. This ensures uniformity in the comparison

between different walking and cycling projects. It should be noted that for walking and

cycling projects, a “High” Strategic Fit can be gained if the project aligns with one or

more of the defined “High” rating targets.

• Effectiveness

The effectiveness assessment considers the contribution that a project makes to achieve

the potential identified in the strategic fit assessment. Higher ratings are given to

projects providing long-term, integrated and enduring benefits.

• Economic Efficiency

The economic efficiency assessment considers how well the proposed solution

maximises the value of what is produced from the resources used. The Benefit Cost

Ratio (BCR) is the primary mechanism used to rate the economic efficiency of a project.

Table 3 overleaf provides a summary of the Assessment Framework for a walking and

cycling project. Therefore in order to successfully demonstrate that the Island Bay to CBD

Cycleway provides value for money, the study must:

• Achieve a “High” Strategic Fit rating by either significantly reducing actual crash risk, be

part of a model walking / cycling community, or by reducing congestion on a key route

in a major urban area;

• Achieve a “High” Effectiveness rating by at a minimum showing that the project can be

significantly effective at achieving the Strategic Fit.

• Achieve a “High” efficiency rating by having four times as many transport benefits as

there are costs. 5 http://www.pikb.co.nz/assessment-framework/assessment-framework-overview/



Table 3: Funding Assessment Framework for New Walking & Cycling Projects

Low Rating Medium Rating High Rating

Strategic Fit • Reduce actual crash risk

Default

Reduction in predicted crash

risk involving deaths and

serious injuries - comply

with Safer Journeys strategy

Reduction in actual crash

risk (5 fatal/serious over

last 5 year) – Comply with

Safer Journeys strategy

• Increase cycle participation Improve uptake of cycling

and walking in main urban

areas

Be Part of a Model

Walking/Cycling

Community to make it

easier and safer.

• Reduce congestion Complete/ complement

existing walking an cycling

network for easing

congestion

On a key route in Major

urban area on agreed

walking and cycling

strategy strategic network

Effectiveness • Impact from strategic fit

assessment

Has an impact and

proportional to scale

of project

Significantly effective Significantly effective

• Reach agreed LOS (NLTP) Satisfied

• Consider all problems, issues

and opportunities Considered

• Consider all alternatives Considered

• Consider Opportunities to

collaborate Considered

Collaboration of the

development of studies,

strategies and plans

• Consider adverse effects Considered

• Affordable Satisfied

• Avoid job duplication Satisfied

• Include monitoring and review

framework Satisfied

• NZTA supported strategy,

endorsed package, programme

or plan

Part of or will contribute to Key component

• Long term solution Provide enduring benefits

• Solution to land use strategy

and implementation plans Satisfied

• Contribute to multiple GPS

impacts Contributes

Strategic approach to

make significant

contribution

• A whole network approach Satisfied

• Improve integration between

modes Satisfied

• Integrates land transport, use

and activity

Satisfied through strategic

approach

• Supports network from a

national perspective Satisfied

• Optimised against multiple

transportation outcomes and

objectives

Satisfied

Efficiency • BCR 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0 4.0+



4 Cycleway Scheme Objectives

The study corridor is one of Wellington’s key urban routes connecting the southern suburbs

with employment opportunities in the CBD. The daily demand for travel along the corridor

is highest during the morning and evening peak hours as shown in Figure 3. At these times

people commute to and from work respectively, contributing towards congestion on the

road network. Providing a cycleway facility that encourages commuter mode shift will assist

in the reduction of this congestion. Adopting commuter cyclists as the primary user group

increases the potential to realise a number of important benefits aligning with current

strategic policy including:

• Reduction of congestion and its environmental effects during peak travel periods;

• Enhanced cycle safety;

• Building on Wellington’s existing cycle network; and

• Providing increased health benefits for new users.

The cycleway scheme objectives are therefore:

• To reduce congestion through the study corridor by encouraging commuter mode shift

from private vehicles to cycling;

• To significantly improve cycle safety and reduce the number of fatal and serious injury

crashes in the study corridor; and

• To provide a facility that meets the “High” ratings under NZTA’s Assessment

Framework making the project more likely to attract further funding.

Figure 3: Congestion typically observed down Adelaide Road (Looking South towards Newtown)



5 Corridor Description

The study area corridor extends 6.1km between The Esplanade, Island Bay and Wellington

Waterfront in the CBD. The corridor has a number of physical and geographical

characteristics with implications for the choice of a cycleway route. For simplicity the

corridor has been broken down into the following three sections as shown in Figure 6:

• Section 1 – The Esplanade to Dee Street / The Parade Roundabout

• Section 2 – Dee Street / The Parade Roundabout through to John Street

• Section 3 – John Street through to Wellington Harbour

The remainder of this Chapter provides context to the corridor sections and describes the

opportunities and challenges a cycleway may present.

5.1 Topography

The study area corridor is situated at the bottom of a steep valley between the Brooklyn Rise

(West) and Mount Victoria (East). A typical cross section of the valley is shown in Figure 4.

The cross-section was taken where Adelaide Road and The Parade intersect at Dee Street.

Figure 4: Cross-Section of Study Corridor

While the study corridor is situated in a valley, the topography and grade of the route is not

constant. An elevated plan of Adelaide Road from Island Bay through to the Basin Reserve

is shown in Figure 5. The route requires a number of climbs to travel from the shoreline in

either direction of travel (at 5m above sea level) to a maximum elevation, 65m above sea

level at MacAlister Park.

Figure 5: Study Corridor Elevation

E W

N S

Mt Victoria Brooklyn Rise



5.2 Land-use

Development within the corridor broadly follows the valley floor described in Chapter 5.1.

Following the valley floor, Adelaide Road is the main arterial road linking Island Bay and

the CBD. From Island Bay through to Newtown, Adelaide Road traverses an area of low

density residential housing. As shown in Figure 6 clusters of retail shopping areas are also

located at Island Bay, Berhampore and Newtown. North from Newtown towards the

Adelaide Road growth node and the CBD development in the corridor is increasingly

commercial with higher density apartment dwellings. Additionally the cycleway would be

situated within close proximity to Wellington Hospital, many schools and Massey

University. The cycleway would therefore provide an important connection for active mode

travel between the southern residential suburbs, employment opportunities to the north,

educational facilities and health services.

Although existing land-use activities provide an important snap-shot of how a cycleway

could benefit the community at the present time, considering the future is essential to

determine if the cycleway will support future growth initiatives and aspirations.

The Wellington Transport Strategy Model (WTSM) operated by the Greater Wellington

Regional Council (GWRC) enables future transport demands to be forecast. The forecasts

are based on data from Statistics New Zealand and demographic trends from previous

Census’. Figure 7 shows the forecast changes to population and employment that are used

as the basis for WTSM travel demand forecasts. These are utilised for all the transport

projects in the region including the components of the Road of National Significance.

It can clearly be seen that the population is forecast to increase along the corridor and that

the growth will be most intense around Newtown and in the CBD. Employment growth is

also concentrated around Newtown and the CBD with a pocket of high growth at the

“Adelaide Road growth node”. With an increase in employment opportunities in these

areas the demand for travel in the corridor will also increase. The cycleway will therefore

play an important role in servicing active mode travel in the north-south direction.

Based on the current land-use activities and the projected WTSM outputs it can be

concluded that the cycleway will increase connectivity for existing cycle demand. The

cycleway is also in a location capable of servicing future year requirements as population

and employment growth changes are influenced by future land-use patterns.



Figure 6: Key land-use features of the study area

Central Business District

Adelaide Road Growth Node

Newtown Shops

Berhampore Shops

Island Bay Shops

Wellington Hospital

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Section 2



Figure 7: Forecast Population Growth (Left) and Employment Growth (Right)



5.3 Road Network

The road network through the study corridor contains a mixture of arterial, principal,

collector and local roads. Key arterial and principal roads are typically straight, very wide,

low in gradient and appropriate for high volume traffic flows. The roads generally have good

forward visibility and controlled intersections along them. Conversely the quieter, local

roads are windy, narrow, low volume and have poor visibility. The local roads do however

provide a greater access to property. The general principle for a roading hierarchy and their

effect on access and mobility is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Basic Principal of a Road Hierarchy6

The road network hierarchy for Wellington City in the study corridor and a summary of the

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) traffic volumes sourced from NZTA’s Crash Analysis

System (CAS) is shown in Figure 9. There is strong correlation between the roading

hierarchy and the traffic volumes observed. Heavy traffic volumes of over 20,000 vehicles

per day are seen at the northern end of the corridor on the designated SH1 and arterial

roads. However, Taranaki Street and Adelaide Road (south of the Basin Reserve) carry

similar levels of traffic despite being only collector and principal roads respectively. Historic

development of Wellington’s road network and the significant growth that has occurred

around it has limited the potential for transport capacity changes. Therefore the desirable

road layout cannot always be provided to cater for the high traffic volumes. Unsurprisingly

congestion is a feature through the corridor south of the Basin Reserve.

6 Image from Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 5: Road Management; Page 5.



Figure 9: Modified Version of “Hierarchy of Roads”, Map 33 WCC District Plan (Left) & the Study Corridor AADT’s (Right)

Basin Reserve Basin Reserve

Adelaide Rd

Adelaide Rd

Taranaki St

The Parade

Taranaki St

The Parade



In addition to traffic volumes, the gradient of the roads through the study corridor is also an

important consideration for the cycleway. The respective gradients per 50m road section

can be seen in Figure 10. The road gradient has been calculated using LIDAR using a geo-

spatial system. Generally it can be seen through the corridor that the arterial roads for the

most maintain a low gradient while local roads can be at between 5-15%. The remaining

contents of Chapter 5.3 specify the characteristics of the study corridor sections in detail.

Figure 10: Gradient of the WCC Road Network



5.3.1 Section 1

The Parade is the main link into and out of Island Bay. Defined as a principal road in the

WCC District Plan, The Parade has an AADT of over 10,000 vehicles per day north of

Medway Street. The road is wide and relatively flat until the Dee Street roundabout

where it becomes Adelaide Road. Surrounding The Parade is a series of parallel

residential streets including Derwent Street, Medway Street, Eden Street (West of The

Parade) and Clyde Street (East of The Parade). With AADT’s under 3,000 vehicles per

day the parallel routes cater for low volume residential traffic. A summary of the road

characteristics for these roads and their location is shown in Table 4 and Figure 11

respectively. Note that the road widths are from kerb to kerb (from RAMM) and have

not been surveyed as part of this study.

Table 4: Roads of Interest on Corridor Section 1

Road Hierarchy AADT* Typical

Road Width Lanes

On-Street parking

Max Gradient

Reef Street Local Road 2,182 16m 2 Yes <5%

The Parade Principal 10,995 9.5 - 15m 2 Yes <5%

Derwent Street Local Road 2,934 8.6-15m 2 Yes <5%

Medway Street Local Road 4,002 6 – 15m 2 In places <5%

Eden Street Local Road 1,200 6 – 12m 2 In places 10-15%

Clyde Street Local Road 1,433 7.5 -12m 2 Yes 10%

*AADT taken from the highest volume identified along named road in CAS (February, 2013).

Figure 11: Location & Characteristics of key roads in Section 1 of Study Corridor

Section 1

Section 2



5.3.2 Section 2

From the Dee Street roundabout, Adelaide Road traverses the entirety of Section 2 from

Island Bay through to the Adelaide Road / John Street / Riddiford Street intersection.

Running parallel to Adelaide Road are local roads including Stanley Street, and Hanson

Street to the west. To the east of Adelaide Road are Rintoul Street and the Principal road

Riddiford Street. Riddiford Street passes Wellington Hospital and is the primary

corridor from the CBD to Newtown. Characteristics of these roads and their location are

shown in Table 5 and Figure 12 respectively. Roads are again taken from kerb to kerb.


Road Hierarchy AADT Typical

Road width Lanes

On-street parking

Max Gradient

Adelaide Road Principal 11,576 8.5-10m 2 In Places 10-15%

Stanley Street Local Road 1,027 7.5-9.5m 1-2 Yes 10-15%

Stoke Street Local Road 1,127 8.5-10m 2 Yes <5%

Hanson Street Local Road 4,818 7.5-9m 1-2 Yes 10-15%

Rintoul Street Collector 3,500 8.5-10m 2 Yes 10-15%

Riddiford Street Principal 20,000 15m 4 Yes <5%

* AADT taken from the highest volume identified along named road in CAS (February, 2013).

Figure 12: Location of key Road links within Section 2 of Study Corridor

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3



5.3.3 Section 3

In Section 3 there are a number of high volume links connecting the main Adelaide

Road Corridor to the south and the CBD to the north. As shown in Figure 13 Adelaide

Road continues from the John Street signalised intersection before it reaches SH1 at the

southern side of the Basin Reserve (Rugby Street). Following the Basin Reserve, the key

arterials Kent and Cambridge Terrace provide access to and from the coast respectively.

Cambridge Terrace has three lanes of vehicle capacity in the northbound direction to

cater for over 10,000 vehicles per day. Kent Terrace provides three lanes of southbound

capacity and is designated as SH1 (south of the Vivian Street intersection). Kent Terrace

typically sees over 20,000 vehicles daily. Adelaide Road, Kent and Cambridge Terrace

are situated on a relatively flat grade. Roads are again taken from kerb to kerb.

Figure 13: Location of key Road links within Section 3 of Study Corridor

Section 3

Section 2



Defined as a Collector Road, Taranaki Street / Wallace Street to the West of the

Adelaide Road corridor sees in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. Taranaki Street is one

of the primary vehicle corridors into the CBD. It has multiple lanes of capacity in each

direction to the north of SH1. South of SH1 there is one lane in each direction as it

passes Wellington High School and Massey University. Some grades up to 10% can be

experienced before it ties into John Street.

In addition to these high capacity and heavily utilised links, the local road Tasman /

Tory Street provides a two-way, single lane in each direction between John Street, SH1

and the waterfront. Tasman Street begins at John Street and terminates at SH1. Tory

Street begins at SH1 and proceeds through the CBD to the waterfront. Tasman Street

covers a residential area and allows access to Massey University. Situated on a hill, it

has one short section with a steep grade up to 10% near John Street. Tory Street is one

of the central corridors through the CBD. However, as it has only one lane of capacity in

each direction, traffic is instead attracted to the high capacity routes of Taranaki Street

or Cambridge / Kent Terrace. There is a high proportion of foot traffic using Tory Street.

The key characteristics for each of the roads described are shown in Table 6.


Road Hierarchy AADT Typical

Road width Lanes

On-street parking

Max Gradient

Adelaide Road Principal 22,905 15.5m 2-4** In Places <5%

Cambridge Tce Arterial 9,563 13-15m 3** Yes <5%

Kent Tce SH1 / Arterial 17,891 12-15m 3** Yes <5%

Tasman St Local Road 4,500 8.5-10m 2 Yes 10-15%

Tory St Local Road 8,625 9m 2 Yes <5%

Taranaki / Wallace St Collector Road 21,963 10-19.8m 2-4 In Places 5-10%

Hanson / King St Local Road 1,418 8-12.5m 2 Yes 5-10%

*AADT taken from one point on the road named from CAS 2013.

**bus lanes are operational during the morning and evening peak periods

5.4 Existing Commuter Cycle Trends

WCC undertakes a range of monitoring surveys as a means of measuring their

progression in achieving key strategic objectives of their Transport Strategy. The

surveys are completed annually and allow the collection of empirical data on pedestrian

flows, cycle flows and vehicle occupancy levels in and around the city.

One of WCC’s key commuter cycle survey locations is at the Adelaide Road / John Street

signalised intersection. As the intersection is located near the centre of the Study Area,

it is able to give a good representation of existing cycle behaviour and growth. The

counts conducted account for all cycle turning movements at the intersection.

The surveys are recorded annually during a two hour peak period between 07:00 –

09:00 AM for five consecutive weekdays. The surveys are traditionally completed in

March. The two hour volume totals that have been collected over the last ten years are

shown in Table 7. These have been extracted from WCC’s “Transport Monitoring

Surveys: March 2012 Survey Results” report (page 26) and are shown in Figure 14.

Analysis of the counts indicates growth in the numbers of weekday cyclists of 5.82% per

annum.



Table 7: Two-hour peak totals recorded each survey period at Newtown Site (07:00-09:00)

Year Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Weekday Average

2003 130 136 179 131 131 141

2004 160 155 101 138 132 137

2005 157 184 175 123 101 148

2006 200 206 208 197 169 196

2007 267 278 284 269 283 276

2008 231 252 254 217 239 239

2009 247 312 274 295 220 270

2010 321 352 334 322 206 307

2011 243 286 283 296 249 271

2012 150 285 299 310 223 253

Figure 14: WCC Cycle-Counts 2003-2012 at Adelaide Road / John Street Intersection

The annual growth calculated is significantly higher than the 0% stated for the

Wellington Region in NZTA’s Economics Evaluation Manual (EEM Volume 2, page 8-

21). Therefore it can be said that there is an increasing demand for cycle activity in the

study corridor. The cycleway project will contribute as a means of providing a

designated facility to meet this and additional demand both now and in the future.



5.5 Crash History

A high level crash analysis was completed for the study corridor using data sourced from

NZTA’s CAS. A five year analysis period between the 1st of July 2007 and 30th of June 2012

has been adopted. The analysis period uses the most up-to date data set currently available

allowing current crash trends and issues to be identified. Most crash benefits associated

with the cycleway project will come from improvements to cycle safety. Therefore only

crashes involving cyclists have been considered in this analysis. Any crash in the selected

study area not involving a cyclist has been removed from consideration. Detailed crash

outputs, reporting and key assumptions from the CAS analysis is provided in Appendix A.

The remainder of this chapter summarises the key trends identified on the road corridors

considered critical for the study. Figure 15 shows the distribution of the crashes by Section.

Figure 15: Cycle Crash Location in Study Area

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3



5.5.1 General Trends

In summary a total of 76 crashes have occurred during the identified analysis period.

Importantly no fatal crashes have occurred in the study area. Although the non-injury

crash total is low, it is most likely that cyclist non-injury crashes go un-reported and are

unlisted in the CAS database. Non-injury cyclist crashes with vehicles are usually only

reported for insurance claims. Clearly and unsurprisingly due to exposure rates, Section

3 which includes the high volume SH1 and local roads surrounding the Basin Reserve

and the CBD is where the majority of cycle crashes have occurred. The breakdown of the

injury totals by section is shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Breakdown of Cycle Crashes by Study Area Section

Section Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total Study Area%

Section 1 0 0 2 2 4 5%

Section 2 0 2 15 1 18 24%

Section 3 0 10 38 6 54 71%

Total 0 12 55 9 76 100%

As indicated in Figure 15, in Section 1, two of the four crashes occurred on The Parade,

the predominant route into and out of Island Bay. The crashes are unrelated and no

trends are identifiable. Of note was that one crash occurred when a bus collided with a

cyclist within the vicinity of the Island Bay shopping precinct.

In Section 2 the cycle crashes have been concentrated at the northern end where there

are a number of heavily utilised, local road, signalised intersections. The intersections

see a high frequency of turning traffic. The intersections are also on the main bus routes

linking the CBD, Wellington Hospital and the southern suburbs. Cyclists are therefore

exposed to a higher degree of vehicle conflict compared to Section 1. The two serious

injury crashes are located at Adelaide Road / John / Riddiford Street and the Riddiford

/ Rintoul Street signalised intersections respectively. Of importance is that there is a

high frequency of crossing / turning crashes at the Stoke Street / Adelaide Road priority

controlled intersection. The intersection could be one of the possible deviations for the

cycleway to avoid the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection. Further design

considerations will be necessary should the Stoke Street intersection be used for the

cycleway.

On Section 3 many of the cycle crashes occur on Adelaide Road and Taranaki Street; the

primary routes into the CBD for both vehicles and cyclists. Four of the ten serious injury

crashes for the section have occurred on Adelaide Road. On Adelaide Road there has

been a high number of crossing / turning and overtaking crashes. Adelaide Road has

multiple lanes and a variety of commercial developments with frontage and parking

requirements. This includes petrol stations and fast food restaurants. Bus lanes also

operate during the peak periods in an alternating directional flow to allow for increased

travel to and from the CBD during peak travel periods. With much going on and with no

designated facility for cycling, there is a high potential for vehicle / cycle conflict. There

are however noticeably fewer crashes on Tory and Tasman Streets with only seven

occurring on the entire link. This local road route has significantly lower traffic volumes

compared to the main corridors into and through the CBD.



5.5.2 Annual Trends

When summarised on an annual basis as shown in Table 9, it can be seen that two

serious injury cycle crashes can be anticipated in the study area per year. The crash

numbers have since steadily decreased from 2008 until 2010 where it has levelled off at

around 12 crashes per calendar year.

Table 9: Study Area (All Sections) Cycle Crashes 2007-2012

Crash Year Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total

2007 (Jul-Dec) 0 2 5 0 7

2008 0 2 12 7 21

2009 0 1 16 1 18

2010 0 2 11 0 13

2011 0 3 7 1 11

2012 (Jan-Jun) 0 2 4 0 6

Total 0 12 55 9 76

Crashes per year 0.0 2.4 11 1.8 15.2

A comparison has also been made between the crash severity observed in the study area

and that on the Wellington City urban road network. Table 10 shows that the study area

is fairly consistent with the wider Wellington trends over the same assessment period.

Table 10: Wellington City (Urban) Comparison Cycle Crashes 2007-2012

Crash Year Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total

Study Area 0 12 55 9 76

% of Study Area Crashes 0% 16% 72% 12% 100%

Wellington City (Urban) 1 78 264 51 394

% of Wellington Crashes 0.3% 20% 67% 13% 100%

5.5.3 Road Users

Predominantly private cars have been involved in the cycle crashes as shown in Table 11.

Large vehicles such as buses and trucks make up only a small proportion of the road

users involved. This is important given that bus / cycle interaction is frequent on the

major study area corridors into the CBD, particularly during peak travel times.

Table 11: Road Users Involved in Cycle Crashes

Road User Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total %

Bus 0 1 1 2 4 5%

Car / Station Wagon 0 6 44 5 55 70%

Pedestrian 0 2 3 1 6 8%

SUV/Van 0 1 0 0 1 1%

Taxi 0 0 3 0 3 4%

Truck 0 1 2 0 3 4%

Van or Utility 0 1 5 1 7 9%

Total 0 12 58 9 79 100%



5.5.4 Time of Day

The time of day that the cycle crashes have occurred is shown in Figure 16. The cycle

crashes are clearly occurring during the weekday peak periods between 08:00-09:00 in

the morning and 17:00-18:00 in the evening. This is consistent with the times at which

the majority of commuter cyclists can be expected to travel. It will also be the time at

which cyclists will be exposed to the greatest number of vehicles during their journey.

Figure 16: Time of day crashes have occurred

5.5.5 Intersection / Midblock Comparison

The majority of cycle crashes in the study area are occurring at intersections. This is not

surprising given this is where the highest frequency of vehicle / cycle conflict is likely to

occur.

Table 12: Intersection / Midblock Comparison

Crash Year Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total Total %

Intersection 0 8 31 4 43 57%

Mid-Block 0 4 24 5 33 43%

5.5.6 Environmental Conditions

Weather and light conditions are not considered to have had a major influence in the

majority of cycle crashes. It is likely that cycle numbers will reduce in adverse weather

conditions. Similarly the number of cyclists travelling at night is potentially lower than

during the day. With reduced exposure rates, fewer crashes will occur outside of dry and

light conditions. Over 85% of cycle crashes have occurred in dry and light conditions

respectively.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

00

00

-01

00

01

00

-02

00

02

00

-03

00

03

00

-04

00

04

00

-05

00

05

00

-06

00

06

00

-07

00

07

00

-08

00

08

00

-09

00

09

00

-10

00

10

00

-11

00

11

00

-12

00

12

00

-13

00

13

00

-14

00

14

00

-15

00

15

00

-16

00

16

00

-17

00

17

00

-18

00

18

00

-19

00

19

00

-20

00

20

00

-21

00

21

00

-22

00

22

00

-23

00

23

00

-00

00

Nu

mb

er

of

Cra

she

s

Time of Day

Cyclist Crash Number by Specific Time Period (July 2007 - June 2012)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday



5.5.7 Crash Movement Type / Contributing Factors

From the crash data it can be said that the majority of crashes are of the crossing /

turning type. As seen in Table 13, 42% of all cycle crashes have been of this crash

movement. Crossing / turning crashes are typical at intersections where cyclists are

subjected to greater conflicts. The trend is again evident in the injury crash total were

almost half of the serious and minor injury crashes are of this movement type.

Table 13: Crash Movement by Severity

Crash Movement Fatal Serious Minor Non-injury Total %

Bend-Lost control/Head on 0 0 2 0 2 3%

Crossing/Turning 0 5 24 3 32 42%

Overtaking 0 3 9 1 13 17%

Pedestrian vs. Vehicle 0 2 3 1 6 8%

Rear end/Obstruction 0 1 17 4 22 29%

Straight-Lost control/Head on 0 1 0 0 1 1%

Total 0 12 55 9 76 100%

5.5.8 Crash History Conclusions

A high level crash analysis has been completed for the Island Bay to CBD cycleway

assessment. Using NZTA’s CAS over the defined five year analysis period the following

key trends have been identified:

• 76 cycle crashes have occurred within the study area defined by the cycleway project.

Of these crashes none were fatal however, 12 were classified as involving serious

injury giving the project a strong correlation with NZTA’s high strategic fit rating if

at least a 25% reduction can be achieved by the cycleway (i.e. three of the crashes

can be prevented);

• Over 70% of the total crash history occurred in Section 3 and nearly 25% of the

crashes occurred in Section 2. There has been a minimal crash occurrence in Section

1. This is due to the varying rate of vehicle exposure cyclists come in contact with.

Cyclists must traverse significant traffic volumes in Section 3 within the vicinity of

SH1. In Section 2 cyclists must traverse some of the busiest local road intersections

in Wellington City;

• Cycle crashes have predominately involved private vehicles. Trucks and buses make

up a very small proportion of vehicles involved in cycle crashes;

• The majority of cycle crashes are occurring during the weekday morning and

evening peak hour periods;

• Almost 60% of all cycle crashes have been at intersections;

• Environmental conditions have not played a significant role in the number of

crashes. Typically cycle crashes have occurred during light and dry conditions; and

• Most cycle crashes have been of the “crossing / turning” movement type. This is

consistent with the higher proportion of the intersection crashes and the likelihood

of increased cycle / vehicle conflict.



6 Design Philosophy

The design philosophy of the project has been to provide a facility appropriate for new

commuter cyclists. Encouraging mode shift will allow the cycleway project to correctly align

with the desired “High” Strategic Fit ratings under NZTA’s funding criteria. A commuter

cyclist is defined as a person making a trip by bicycle for either a work or study purpose. As

indicated in Table 14, commuter cyclists typically have a wide range of experience and

ability to handle different traffic flow conditions. This has a heavy influence on the design

layout and the types of facilities that can be considered within the context of the study

corridor. The sections contained within this chapter outline the needs of commuter users

considered for the route selection and the facility design. It also identifies the appropriate

standards forming the basis of any concept details.

Table 14: Categories of cyclists and their characteristics (Adapted Austroads AP-G88-11 Page 9)

Category Rider Characteristics Riding environment

Primary school children Cognitive skills not developed, little knowledge of road rules, require supervision.

Off-road path, footpath (where permitted) or very low volume residential street.

Secondary school children Skill varies, developing confidence. Generally use on-road facilities or off-road paths where available.

Recreational Experience, age, skills vary greatly. Desire off-road paths and quiet local streets, avoid heavily trafficked routes, more experienced will prefer to use road system for long journeys.

Commuter Vary in age, skill and fitness, some highly skilled and able to handle a variety of traffic conditions.

Some prefer paths or low-stress roads, willing to take longer to get to destination, others want quick trips regardless of traffic conditions primarily require space to ride and smooth riding surface, speed maintenance.

Utility Ride for specific purposes (shopping), short length trips, and routes unpredictable.

Not on highly trafficked roads, needs include comprehensive, low-stress routes, appropriate end of trip facilities.

Touring Long distance journeys, may be heavily equipped, some travelling in groups.

Often route is similar to that of other tourists.

Sporting Often in groups, two abreast occupying left lane, needs similar to commuters.

Travel long distances in training on arterials, may include challenging terrain in outer urban or rural areas, generally do not use off-road routes because of high speed and conflict with other users



6.1 Commuter Cyclist User Priorities

Commuter cyclists have different priorities to that of other cyclist users. Most commuter

cyclist journeys will typically occur on main road arterials or designated cycle routes.

Designing for commuters should cater for cyclists of basic competence, while maintaining

the qualities valued by more experienced commuters (LTSA Cycle Network & Route

Planning). Table 15 provides a snapshot of the key considerations for which a commuter

cycle facility must account for. Ideally to meet the needs of commuters a cycleway must:

• Provide a high-quality road surface;

• Be on a direct & coherent route;

• Be on a route that has minimal delays; and

• Minimise the number of steep climbs required on the route.

Preferably a cycleway between Island Bay and Wellington CBD should also:

• Provide a route that has a high level of surveillance and lighting for increased personal

security;

• Have a number of safety features to ensure minimal conflict with other traffic;

• Provide separation from vehicle traffic, giving cyclists their own space; and

Be in an area of low vehicle speeds and traffic volumes.

Although ideally the routes selected and the facilities to be provided on them will conform

to these preferences, the physical environment and existing infrastructure such as parking

has effects on what can ultimately be provided.

Table 15: Cyclists User Needs (Adopted “LTSA Cycle Network & Route Planning Guide Page 23”)

Criteria Requirement Utility Cycling

Commuter Cycling

Sports Adults

Recreation Cycling

Touring Cycling

Safety

Personal security High Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Safe facility High Moderate Low High Moderate

Separated from traffic

High Moderate Low High High

Low traffic speeds & volumes

High Moderate Low High Moderate

Routes

Road surface quality

Low High High Moderate Moderate

Direct & coherent routes

Moderate High Low Low Low

Minimal Delays Moderate High High Low Low

Minimal gradients High High Low Moderate High



6.2 Wellington Specific Cyclist Route Choice Considerations

The characteristics of the route along which cycling infrastructure is provided will affect the

level of appeal it has for people with different levels of cycling ability or experience. This

section identifies the characteristics that will appeal to new users and the difference

between them and existing commuter cyclists. Information is interpreted from an analysis

of a questionnaire survey undertaken by Jean Beetham as part of her Master’s Thesis (2013)

for the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences Victoria University of

Wellington.

Jean’s survey and subsequent analysis sought to develop an understanding of current

bicycle use, attitudes and barriers to, and perceptions of cycling for transport in Wellington.

Her survey analysis was based on 603 on-line responses from people that travel along the

corridor between Island Bay and Wellington CBD. The nature of the survey deployment

means that respondents were self-selecting.

The findings of particular interest are the relative importance of four route choice factors

for survey respondents with different levels of interest in, or pre-disposition towards

cycling. Survey respondents were categorised according to their stage of (or readiness for)

change. To provide a facility capable of causing mode shift this is fundamental to the

project. The route choice factors in Jean’s analysis were:

• Perceived safety;

• Flatness (i.e. gradient and level changes);

• Greenspace (route amenity); and

• Directness.

The analysis investigated the relative importance of these factors for each of the stages of

change for cycling. The results have been adopted to determine the characteristics of

existing and potential new users that might use a cycleway between Island Bay and the

CBD. Table 16 is adapted from a Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ) Research Report. It

defines each stage of change and shows the proportion of the population in each stage of

change. The stage of change represents respondents’ attitudes to cycling now assuming no

changes to the prevailing conditions or environment. Jean’s survey analysis was similar

and followed a categorisation based on Gatersleben and Appleton (2007).

Table 16: Cycling Stages of Change (Adapted from LTNZ Research Report 294, Table 4.1&4.2)

Stages of Change Stage of Change

Group NZ

Wellington Region

Not even consider using a bicycle Pre-contemplation 41% 44%

Realise that you could use a bicycle but wouldn't actually do it

Contemplation 14% 12%

Think seriously about the pros and cons of cycling but rarely do it

Ready for action 8% 7%

Try cycling on some occasions Action 18% 20%

Cycle quite often / Almost always Cycle Maintenance 1&2 14% 14%

Not answered - 5% 3%

Total 100% 100%



The “contemplation” and “ready for action” groups can be considered representative of

potential new cyclists. The “action” and “maintenance” groups represent existing cyclists

that may be encouraged to cycle more often. Table 16 shows that 8% (ready for action) of

the population may become “new cyclists”. Almost 17% (action) could be encouraged to

cycle more often. Together, these groups represent 25% of the population in Wellington.

Overall Jean’s results showed that the importance of perceived safety became less

important as the interest in, or predisposition towards cycling increased. In other words,

people that cycle infrequently on the Island Bay to CBD corridor perceive it to be less safe

than those that cycle regularly.

Similarly the findings showed that for regular cyclists “flatness” is less important relative to

other considerations, than for those that think seriously about cycling but rarely do it.

There appeared to be less difference in the relative emphasis placed on green space or

directness between the different stages of change. This does not mean that these factors are

not important; but that their relative importance is more a function of user perception of

safety and flatness. For example, infrequent cyclists see safety as being highly important, so

relatively speaking directness is less important to them. As regular cyclists place less

importance on safety, the relative weight they place on directness increases.

The research findings show that perceived safety was the most important route choice

consideration for the pre-contemplation (42% of population), contemplation (14% of

population) and ready for action (8% of population) stages of change. In other words,

potential new users value safety above the other three route choice considerations.

Choosing the flattest route was the second most important factor for the pre-contemplation

and contemplation groups with directness as third most important. The ready for action

(8% of population) group had directness as the second most important consideration

however there was less difference between this and choosing the flattest route which was

third.

On the basis of the research findings in can be concluded that specifically for respondents in

the study corridor:

• the most important consideration for factor for attracting new users (“contemplation”

and “ready for action”) is a perception of safety;

• people who sometimes cycle that could be encouraged to do so more frequently

(“action”) also place high importance on feelings of safety;

• the second most important factor for potential new users is flatness (minimal level

changes / steep gradients); and

• directness becomes relatively more important for regular cyclists.

This means that for the Island Bay to CBD corridor:

1. a route designed primarily for new users needs to feel safe and be flat but could be

longer than the most direct route;

2. a route designed for confident cyclists should follow the fastest, most direct route but

may feel less safe and involve more level changes or gradients; and

3. a route that is flat and direct will appeal to both new users and confident cyclists as long

as it can be made to feel safe.



6.3 Facility Types & Standards

A range of facility types has been considered. Given the context of the environment and the

existing infrastructure, some facilities are more easily adopted to different sections of

possible corridor routes. Due to the wide ranging costs and implications for WCC the

following facilities have been investigated for the commuter cycleway’s design.

• On-road cycle-lanes;

• Off-road cycle paths;

• Shared-use paths and

• Copenhagen Lanes.

The design dimensions have been extracted from the following industry guidelines:

• Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian & Cycle Paths (October 2009);

• Cycling Aspects of Austroads Guides (March 2011);

• New Zealand Supplement to the Austroads guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part

14: Bicycles (2008).

The dimensions detailed in Table 17 have been carried through for the remainder of the

project where possible by the design team. Figure 17 shows examples of the treatments.

Table 17: Cycle Facility Dimensions Adopted

Facility Width Required Source

On-Road Cycle Lane 1.5 (no parking) 1.8m (with parallel parking) 2.0m (with angle parking)

NZ Supplement (50km/h speed zone) Page 8-10.

Off-Road Cycle Paths (Cyclists Only)

2.5 - 3.0 m Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A. Appendix A.1, Page 82.

Shared-use Paths (Pedestrians & Cyclists)

3.0 - 4.0 m Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A. Appendix A.1, Page 84.

Copenhagen Lanes (Separated Cyclists only two-way lanes)

2.5 – 3.0 m≥ http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bike-futures/11522/

Figure 17: Examples of On-road Cycle Facility (left) & Shared Use Cycle Path (Right)7

7 Source: New Zealand Supplement to the Austroads guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 14: Bicycles, page iii.



7 Cycleway Routes & Treatments Considered

This chapter presents the possible cycleway routes developed for WCC’s consideration.

Building on the ideas provided in previous chapters, the routes are broken into three

sections each described separately. The constraints and opportunities for commuter cycling

on each route are described. The information is presented visually by section on a series of

plans. Each plan shows the routes being discussed and contain photographs of the existing

conditions.

At this stage routes have been reviewed to identify the most significant considerations, any

fatal flaws and the overall feasibility. Subsequent work will be undertaken to develop full

design specifications, quantities and details.

7.1 Section 1

7.1.1 Existing Constraints

As described in Chapter 5.3.1, The Parade is the primary and most direct road through

Island Bay and is currently the preferred route for cyclists. The Parade is flat and

approximately 13.5m wide over the majority of its length. On-road cycle lanes, 1.5m in

width, are currently provided between the coast and the Island Bay Shops (Figure 18,

Image 3&4). Although flat and direct, The Parade has a number of limitations for

commuter cycling:

• The Parade carries the highest traffic flows through Section 1 with more than 10,000

vehicles per day, north of Island Bay Shops;

• The existing cycle lanes situated on The Parade stop 50m short of intersections to

accommodate right turn bays (Figure 18, Image 3); and

• Although a reduced speed limit of 30km/h is present through the Island Bay Shops,

a number of hazards are present for cyclists including vehicles manoeuvring into

angle and parallel parking spaces; bus movements (Figure 18, Image 2) and there is

a number of turning vehicles accessing the New World supermarket located off

Medway Street.

Potential options for Section 1 therefore include:

• Improvements to better accommodate cyclists on the Parade; or

• The use of low volume, traffic flow streets running parallel to The Parade.

Alternative routes considered for the implementation of the above options are shown on

the following pages. An evaluation comparison between all the routes considered on

Section 1 is provided in Chapter 7.1.5.



This page has been deliberately left blank



7.1.2 Option 1-A

Option 1-A (blue line on Figure 18) is an upgrade of the main street through Island Bay. A new continuous cycling facility would be provided from Reef Street and the Parade all the way to the Adelaide Road / Dee Street roundabout. The general works that will be required are listed below:

• A continuous cycleway facility will be provided on The Parade, North of the Island Bay Shops through to the Adelaide Road / Dee Street Roundabout. Intersections will be widened to accommodate the new facility. Additionally the existing central median will be narrowed (Image 1).

• Parking at the Island Bay shopping area could be re-configured to be more conducive to continuous cycle travel. The angle parking spaces could be converted into parallel spaces resulting in the loss of parking. Some of the footpath area on the western side of the Island Bay Shops may also be required (Image 2).

• The footprint of the priority intersections located on The Parade south of the Island Bay Shops will be increased by utilising the existing verge and footpath areas. This will enable a continuous cycleway facility to be provided through each intersection without further minimising the length and widths of the existing right turn bays (Image 3).

• The Reef Street / The Parade intersection could be modified to better prioritise the intersection for cycleway movements. This might include modifying the existing pedestrian crossings; re-configuring the existing bus stop and trolley bus turning area as well as other minor safety improvements;

As the road reserve is sufficiently wide along The Parade, many different cycleway facility types can be considered as a treatment option as detailed in Chapter 7.1.5.

Figure 18: Section 1 Routes – Option 1-A

1

2

3

4

Dee Street RAB

Reef Street

The Parade



7.1.3 Parallel Routes

Options 1-B, 1-C and 1-D are parallel to Option 1-A as shown in Figure 19. Option 1-B and 1-C (red & green lines) may be implemented together to avoid the Island Bay Shopping area. Alternatively in combination with parts of Option 1-A, Option 1-D (purple route) follows Clyde Street and also avoids the shopping area. The main reasons for considering for these parallel routes are:

• To provide the opportunity to avoid the Island Bay Shops;

• To follow relatively wide, low volume traffic routes (Image 4);

• Avoid interaction with buses at the bus stops;

• Option 1-D passes Island Bay Primary School. However, the parallel routes have their own disadvantages:

• Option 1-C and 1-D include more level changes and steep gradients compared to Option 1-A (Images 1-3);

• They introduce cycling turning movements across high volume traffic flows at priority intersections;

• They are less direct and legible than Option 1-A.

Figure 19: Section 1 Routes – Option 1-B, 1-C & 1-D

1

2

3

4



7.1.4 Section 1 Route Elevation & Length Comparison

A visual comparison between the elevations for each of the Section 1 options is shown in Figure 20 below. The length of reach is easily identified. Clearly Option 1-A encounters less grades and is shorter than the parallel routes.

Figure 20: Elevated Plans of Route 1 Options

Option 1-A

Option 1-B

Option 1-C N S



7.1.5 Preferred Section 1 Route & Possible Treatments

Option 1-A best caters to the user needs described in Chapter 6.2 and is the best

performing route for Section 1. The route caters for new commuter users by being the

flattest and the most direct of the routes considered. Treatment options must therefore

attempt to give cyclists a heightened presence and increased sense of safety.

As The Parade is sufficiently wide a number of different treatments could potentially be

applicable along the route including:

• On-road cycle lanes;

• An off-road shared-path; or • Copenhagen lanes.

A shared-path or Copenhagen lanes are unwarranted treatments at this location. The

lack of gradient, low traffic flows and the width of the road already provide a reasonable

level of ride-comfort. Enhancing existing and providing new cycle lanes will cost-

effectively improve ride comfort as well as reducing the risk of crashes.

Whilst the provision of a shared path or Copenhagen lanes would benefit cyclists, the

increase in level of service would not warrant the significantly higher costs and

disruption involved. On-road cycle lanes improve the ride comfort whilst also allowing

faster or more confident cyclists to easily overtake.

On-road cycle lanes can be quickly and easily implemented with minimal impacts on

adjacent property and/or loss of on-street parking. With potential changes to the angle

parking through the Island Bay shopping area and changes to priority controlled

intersections, continuous cycle-lanes (with a width of 1.5-1.8m) can potentially be

installed, without gaps in each direction through the corridor, thus increasing the

priority for cyclists in this section. The warranty of removing the parallel parking spaces

should be investigated during the detailed design phase.



7.2 Section 2

7.2.1 Existing Constraints

Adelaide Road is the primary and most direct route from Island Bay into Newtown (blue

route on Figure 21). It is currently the route used by most commuter cyclists. Through

Section 2 Adelaide Road passes low density residential property and recreational fields

including Wakefield Park, Berhampore Golf Club and MacAlister Park. It acts as both

the frontage of the Berhampore shopping area and the Countdown Supermarket at the

corner of the Adelaide Road /John Street signalised intersection.

Through Section 2 the elevation of Adelaide Road rises from 15m above sea level at the

Dee Street Roundabout (end of Section 1) through to a peak of 65m at MacAlister Park.

The elevation then drops to 18m at the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection (start

of Section 3). Due to property boundaries and the surrounding topography, Adelaide

Road has a narrow carriageway width of between 8.5m and 10m. Therefore although

direct, Adelaide Road has the following constraints for commuter cycling:

• High traffic volumes with over 11,500 vehicles per day expected south of the

Berhampore Shops;

• No midblock cycle facilities are currently provided;

• Due to topography and property boundaries, Adelaide Road’s cross-sectional width

is narrow between 8.5-10m. Pinch points force cyclists to ride in general traffic

streams causing feelings of discomfort for cyclists (Figure 21, Image 3);

• On the approaches to the high point at MacAlister Park, the road gradients are

steep, up to 15% in some locations. This is particularly evident on the northbound

approach close to Berhampore Shops (Figure 21, Image 3&4);

• Hazards present through the Berhampore shopping area including vehicles

manoeuvring into parallel parking spaces and into and out of commercial premises

such as the BP petrol station;

• High volumes of turning traffic at the two signalised intersections in the

Berhampore shopping area at Adelaide Road / Britomart Street and Adelaide Road /

Luxford Street.

• Adelaide Road runs through the busy Adelaide Road / John Street signalised

intersection at the northern end of Section 2. The intersection is one of the busiest in

Wellington City with over 30,000 vehicles travelling through it each day.

Potential options for Section 2 therefore include:

• Improvements to better accommodate cyclists on Adelaide Road;

• Provision for cyclists on less direct routes running parallel to the east or west of

Adelaide Road; or

• A combination of the above to avoid the necessary grade, intersections and on-road

constraints.


the following pages. An evaluation comparison between all the routes considered on

Section 2 is provided in Chapter 7.2.7.



7.2.2 Option 2-A

Option 2-A (blue line on Figure 21) upgrades the central corridor on

Adelaide Road. A new cycle facility would be provided where possible from

the Dee Street / Adelaide Road roundabout through to the Adelaide Road /

John Street signalised intersection. The route is the most direct journey for

cyclists from Island Bay to Newtown. The following works would be

required:

• Removal of on-street residential parking throughout (Image 1). The

parking take required is dependent on the facility to be provided and

road widths along the route. For example:

- If you provide a cycle lane in each direction this would result in

the removal of parking on both sides of the carriageway.

- A shared path on one side would remove parking on one side

only. For most of the route the existing footway width can be

included as part of the 3-4m wide shared path;

- Two-way Copenhagen lanes are likely to involve parking removal

on both sides because it would be separated from pedestrians.

The 3m+ required for the lanes therefore would need to come

from the carriageway unless the footway widths are reduced.

• Potential adjustments to the layouts of the Adelaide Road / Britomart

Street, Adelaide Road / Luxford Street and the Adelaide Road / Hall

Street signalised intersections to give cyclists greater priority (Image 2);

• Kerb & Channel changes and the minimisation of the footpaths provided

between the Berhampore Golf Club and the Berhampore shops

depending on the facility to be provided (Image 3); and

• Re-allocation of the road space between the Dee Street roundabout and

the Berhampore Golf Club by using the central median (Image 4).

Option 2-A could be amended to join Option 2-D (black route) so as to avoid

the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection. Due to the space limitations

only on-road cycle lanes or a shared-use path can be realistically provided on

the Option 2-A route. It is however the most direct and legible route through

Section 2. Once further road space is allocated the decision must be made

weather to mark this as cycle lanes (on-road facility) or widen the footpath

(off-road facility) on one side of the road. This has differing cost

implications.


1

2

3

4



7.2.3 Option 2-B

Option 2-B (red line on Figure 22) follows Adelaide Road until Wakefield

Park / Berhampore golf course. It can either go around the back of the

artificial playing surfaces at Wakefield Park (Image 1) or it can use the golf

club entrance. The route then follows Stanley Street on-road past

Berhampore School to the bottom entrance of MacAlister Park (Image 2). A

switch back or travelator is then required to negotiate the 14m level

difference between Stanley Street and MacAlister Park. From here the route

would be a shared-use path through MacAlister Park and alongside Adelaide

Road (Image 3&4).

North of MacAlister Park Option 2-B could be combined with a variation of

Option 2-A (blue route) or with Option 2-D (black route) alignments. Option

2-B requires the following works:

• Levelling of the ground surface alongside the first hole fairway of the

Berhampore Golf Course;

• Construction of a switch back or the installation of a travelator at the

southern end of MacAlister Park; and

• Levelling of the ground surface through MacAlister Park.

Option 2-B has the following benefits;

• By-passes the narrow, heavily trafficked volumes of Adelaide Road,

especially if constructed in conjunction with Option 2-D making it feel

very safe;

• Avoids the hazardous Berhampore Shops precinct; and

• Passes Berhampore School.

However, it also has the following limitations:

• Less direct and longer route than Option 2-A;

• Still requires steep gradients to be negotiated on Stanley Street;

• Lack of passive surveillance which could result in a real or perceived lack

of personal security, limiting its use by more vulnerable cyclists or at

night; and

• Initial cost projections have indicated it will be significantly more

expensive to implement than Option 2-A with an on-road facility.

As the majority of Option 2-B is off-road, a shared use path should be

constructed for the Adelaide Road sections of Option 2-B. As the traffic

volumes are so low on the Stanley Street portion of Option 2-B leaving the

road as it is, with measures to improve motorists’ awareness of cyclists, is

appropriate.

Figure 22: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-B

3

4

2

1

Stanley Street



7.2.4 Option 2-C

Option 2-C (cyan line on Figure 23) provides a cycleway to the east of

Adelaide Road. Travelling north, Adelaide Road will be used until the

Berhampore Golf Club. The cycleway will then divert through the eastern

side of the course across the 14th and 15th fairways (Image 1). As alternative

cross connections such as Herald Street have grades in excess of 20%. A

large level difference will be negotiated through a switch back and will tie the

cycleway into the existing road network at Rintoul Street after traversing

Martin Luckie Park. The cycleway will then follow Rintoul Street through

Newtown (Images 2-3). From Rintoul Street the cycleway will go onto

Riddiford Street, passing through large signalised intersection and

Wellington hospital (Image 4) before terminating at the end of Section 2 at

the Adelaide Road / John Street signalised intersection. The following works

will be required if Option 2-C is adopted:

• Construction of the link through Berhampore Golf Course;

• Potential adjustments to the layouts of the Rintoul / Waripori Street,

Rintoul / Riddiford Street and Riddiford/Hall Street signalised

intersections to give cyclists greater priority;

• Amendments to the footpaths, kerbs and channel along Rintoul Street

depending on the facility to be installed and the existing carriageway

widths;

• Removal of on-street residential parking.

Option 2-C has the following benefits;

• Avoids the narrow, heavily trafficked volumes of Adelaide Road;

• Avoids the Berhampore Shops pinch-point precinct;

• Passes South Wellington Intermediate School;

• Passes Wakefield and Wellington Hospitals; and

• Is the most direct route for travel between Island Bay and Newtown.

However, Option 2-C has the following limitations:

• Less direct and longer route than Option 2-A for travel between Island

Bay and the CBD;

• Affects Berhampore Golf Course operations;

• Still requires grades to be negotiated through the golf course and on

Rintoul Street;

• Traffic volumes are higher along Riddiford Street than they are on

Adelaide Road through Section 2 making the success of the route

dependent on the ability to make it safe and comfortable for cycling; and

• Affects residents ability to park on-street close to their homes.

Option 2-C could be comprised of a mixture of on-road and off-road

facilities. As the traffic volumes are low on the southern portions of Rintoul

Street, leaving the road as it is may also be a viable alternative.

Figure 23: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-C

4

3

2

1

Herald Street



7.2.5 Option 2-D & Option 2-E

Option 2-D (black line on Figure 24) begins on the corner of Adelaide Road

and Stoke Street. Following west on Stoke Street, the route links onto

Hanson Street where it continues through to the John Street / Hanson Street

signalised intersection.

Option 2-D can tie into either Option 2-A or 2-B. It provides a quiet local

road alternative to Adelaide Road through to the northern end of Section 2

(Image 1). It allows for the complete avoidance of the Adelaide Road / John

Street signalised intersection. The deviation and gradient associated with

cycling between Adelaide Road and Hanson Street mean that Option 2-D is

not appropriate unless the cycleway continues, in Section 3, on Tasman

Street.

Option 2-D can be constructed as a range of different facility types. For

example as a quiet residential street the option could be implemented with

few physical works being required.

A link on the western side of MacAlister Park (Option 2-E – purple route on

Figure 24) was investigated as a way to connect Option 2-B and Option 2-D.

The level changes necessary (Image 2&3) make such a route unachievable

without significant earthworks. This would increase the cost of the option

and make the route less convenient for cyclists. For such reasons Option 2-E

was excluded from further consideration.

Figure 24: Section 2 Routes – Option 2-D & Option 2-E

2

1

3




A visual comparison between the elevations for each of the Section 2

options connecting Section 1 and Section 3 is shown in Figure 25.

Noticeably it can be seen that travelling on a flat grade is not possible on

any of the options. Option 2-A appears the shortest in length,

approximately 600m less than Option 2-B (when included with either

Option 2-A or Option 2-D from MacAlister Park) which is the longest

route at 2980m.

There is a single high-point on Adelaide Road (Option 2-A) with gradients

gradually increasing on each approach to the high point. There are two

steep uphill sections, one northbound from Berhampore Shops and the

other southbound from Stoke Street. Combining Option 2-A with Option

2-D does not avoid either of these steep sections.

Option 2-B avoids the steep gradient north of Berhampore shops but

replaces it with a steep northbound approach to Stanley Street from the

Berhampore Golf course. There is also a small secondary peak at the Golf

Club entrance meaning that people cycling along the route would travel

up and down through multiple level changes.

The southbound climb to the highpoint on Option 2-C is more gradual

and includes some relatively flat sections, this comes at the expense of the

northbound approach to the highpoint which involves a 45m climb in less

than 800m.

Option 2-C involves the most evident climb, northbound through

Berhampore Golf Course. Other than this, each of the routes involves a

similar number of steep climbs of a similar length. The ride comfort for

each climb would therefore be more affected by the available space and

feeling of separation from adjacent traffic flows than by the physical

characteristics of the climbs themselves.


Option 2-A

Option 2-B (to MacAlister Park with Option 2-A to John Street

Option 2-C

Option 2-A (to Stoke Street), Option 2-D (John Street)

Option 2-B (to Stoke Street), Option 2-D (John Street)

N S




The preceding chapter has demonstrated that each of the routes involve the same

overall level change and similar gradients. Route choice through this section therefore

becomes centred on:

• Providing the most direct and fastest route for existing users;

• Introducing a safe facility to attract new / less confident users; and

• The effects and costs of the cycleway.

Option 2-A along Adelaide Road is the most direct of the routes available. It will be the

fastest for cycle travel between Section 1 and Section 3. It will continue to be used by

existing cyclists whether a facility is provided or not. It would be used by new cyclists if

it can be made to feel safe. On-road cycle lanes or a shared-use path could be a possible

treatment. Both treatments would involve the removal of on-street parking.

On-road cycle-lanes will provide the lowest impact on adjacent property and footpaths.

Provision of cycle lanes in both directions, will for much of the route require removal of

parking on both sides of the road. Variations to this treatment could be to provide cycle

lanes for up-hill sections, thereby requiring removal of parking from one side of the

road. Alternatively with the assistance of enforcement as occurs currently on Thorndon

Quay, clear zones could be implemented during the peak hour periods.

A shared-use path would require physical works to widen the footway on one-side of the

road. This would involve more cost than parking removal and road markings. There is

insufficient room to provide a shared-use path on both sides of the carriageway without

impacts on adjacent property (i.e. land-take). A two way shared path could be provided

on one side and for most sections would involve removing parking from only one side of

the road.

Option 2-B follows quiet local streets and would target vulnerable and / or new cyclists.

It has little appeal for confident commuter cyclists as it is the least direct of the options

considered. To realise the benefits of Option 2-B it would need to be progressed in

conjunction with option 2-D to provide for new users. Based on the significant

redevelopment that would be required and the likely cost implications above Option 2-

A, it is recommended that Option 2-B is no longer progressed as an option.

Option 2-C provides an eastern alternative to Adelaide Road including an off-road path

through Berhampore Golf Course. As with Adelaide Road either on-road cycle lanes or

an off-road path could be provided for the remainder of the section for increased safety

along Rintoul and Riddiford Street. Option 2-C is not as direct as Option 2-A and has

major implications for the Berhampore Golf Course layout. Although it passes Newtown

Shops and Wellington Hospital it places cyclists at conflict with traffic volumes higher

than those seen on Adelaide Road. For this reason Option 2-A is seen as a better

alternative.

Option 2-D provides a local road alternative to Adelaide Road between Stoke Street and

John Street. It allows cyclists to avoid the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection. It

would only be constructed if connecting options were also selected in Section 3. Traffic

calming and other measures could be provided along the route to assist in providing a



perceived sense of safety along Stoke and Hanson Street. Depending on the option

desired for Section 3, Option 2-D could also be taken forward.

All of the options have merit and are feasible. In order to align with the NZTA

assessment criteria, the proposed option must provide value for money. Option 2-A is

therefore the preferred route through the corridor given that it can cater for both new

and existing cyclists. The proposed treatment will need to make cyclists feel safe and

provide a convenient and comfortable ride. The physical separation provided by an off-

road shared path would help new cyclists to feel safe. This would cost more than on-

road cycle lanes and could disadvantage cyclists that continue to ride on-road.



7.3 Section 3

7.3.1 Existing Conditions

Further elaborating from Chapter 5.3.3, Section 3 contains the key, high capacity roads

linking Wellington’s southern suburbs and the CBD. The Adelaide Road and Kent /

Cambridge arterials are the current route favoured by cyclists. They are flat and direct.

The arterials have wide road widths to cater for the traffic volumes that are present. In

addition they also serve the city’s primary public transport corridor. Both the

Ngauranga to Airport Transport Strategy and the Wellington Public Transport Spine

Study have proposed future proofing the route for high quality passenger transport

services including options for light rail. The Adelaide Road corridor has the following

issues for commuter cycling:

• There are no designated cycle facilities on this key urban transport corridor;

• cyclists share bus lanes

• Adelaide Road has heavy turning traffic due to commercial premises located along

its length including petrol stations and fast food operators;

• There are issues of through fare when the Basin Reserve is being utilised for

cricketing events or at night;

• Adelaide Road carries and Cambridge / Kent Terrace carry traffic flows of over

20,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day respectively. Both routes see significant

congestion at peak times;

• Existing on-street parking near the raised central median between Kent &

Cambridge Terrace leaves little room for cyclists, forcing them into highly utilised

traffic lanes; and

• The route is a high volume passenger transport corridor meaning cycle / bus

interaction is unavoidable.

Potential options for Section 3 include:

• Improvements to the main arterial corridor along Adelaide Road and Cambridge /

Kent Terraces;

• The use of quiet, local road corridors on Tasman / Tory Street; and

• Improvements to the collector road following Taranaki / Wallace Street.


the following pages. A comparison between all the routes considered on Section 3 is

provided in Chapter 7.3.7.



7.3.2 Option 3-A

Option 3-A (blue line on Figure 26) upgrades the existing corridor following

Adelaide Road and Cambridge / Kent Terrace. Adequate separation from

other road users is desirable. Currently cyclists share bus lanes with several

high frequency bus routes. Due to the large road widths of the corridor

Images 1-4) a number of alternative facility types are possible, each involving

road space re-allocation. Options involve:

• Do minimum – cyclists continue to share bus lanes

• Changes to parking arrangements on Cambridge (Image 1) / Kent (Image

2) Terraces and / or kerb and channel to provide cycle lanes along the

central median; and

• Increases to the footprints of signalised intersections along Kent /

Cambridge Terrace. To cater for features including advanced stop-lines

and or the provision of separate cycle lanes along the central and signal

phasing if required.

Ideally bus lanes that are shared with cyclists are 4.2m or more wide. Bus

lanes of this width cannot be provided on Adelaide Road without land-

purchase. This was investigated as part of proposals for the Adelaide Road

growth node and discounted on the grounds of value for money. In current

investigations light rail or a segregated busway along the route are again

being considered for the road cross section. Should either of these mass

transit options be progressed it is essential that dedicated road space is

allocated for cyclists. This would require land-purchase.


1

2

3

4



7.3.3 Option 3-B

Option 3-B follows King Street from John Street through to Adelaide Road (red line on Figure 27). The main rationale for this option is that it avoids the Adelaide Road / John Street signalised intersection and a long section of Adelaide Road. Given that this option re-joins Adelaide Road at King Street, this advantage is of limited value.

The signalised Hanson / John Street intersection can be upgraded to provide a direct and safe crossing of John Street (Image 4). Cyclists will then travel on King Street. From this intersection northwards, facilities will be provided on Adelaide Road and Kent / Cambridge Terrace as per Option 3-A. The option has the following advantages:

• The cycleway will use a low volume residential street away from most of Adelaide Road’s length (Images 1-3); and

• The cycleway will avoid the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection. However, it has the following disadvantages:

• Is not as direct or flat as Adelaide Road; and • Not compatible with the most options for Section 2 (except Option 2-D);

Given the very low traffic flows on King Street, Option 3-B can be constructed with few physical works. Traffic calming can be installed and signs highlighting the presence of cyclists could be considered.

Figure 27: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-B

2

3

4

1

John Street



7.3.4 Option 3-C

Option 3-C (green line on Figure 28) provides a route from Section 2

through to Wellington waterfront via Tasman / Tory Street. Option 3-C is

only compatible with Option 2-D. Tasman and Tory Street are both low

traffic volume local roads. South of Buckle Street and the National War

Memorial, Tasman Street provides access to residential properties. In the

north, Tory Street provides access to higher density developments including

both residential and commercial premises. The road widths are relatively

narrow and would require the following works if the cycleway is to follow

this route:

• Shared path to be constructed on the northern side of John Street

between Hanson / King Street & Tasman Street. This will allow safe

crossing of John Street from Hanson Street at a signalised facility;

• Kerb and channel refinements including removal of on-street parking

along the route, particularly on Tory Street (Image 1&2);

• Minor reconfiguration of the signalised intersections along the route to

make them safer and more suitable for cyclists. Changes possibly include

either footprint increases, additional lanes, median and lane width

reductions or signal phase adjustments at:

• Tasman / Buckle Street;

• Tory SH1 (South);

• Tory / Courtenay Place;

• Tory / Wakefield Street; and

• Tory / Cable Street.

Option 3-C therefore has some noted advantages:

• Utilises a low volume, local road route which will feel safer for new

cyclists;

• Is already one of the better used walking and cycling routes into the

CBD;

• Travels past Massey University & Mount Cook School; and

• Provides opportunities to link with the National War Memorial Park.

However it has the following disadvantages:

• Is not as direct as Option 3-A;

• A steep hill with grades up to 15% must be negotiated on Tasman Street

close to John Street (Images 3&4);

• Some on-street parking will need to be removed on both the Tasman &

Tory Street;

• A high frequency of turning traffic present due to the many commercial

properties which front Tory Street down to the waterfront; and

• Not direct if combined with any Section 2 option other than 2-D.

A range of facility types could be provided each with different implications

for on-street parking.

Figure 28: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-C

2

1

3

4

John Street



7.3.5 Option 3-D

Option 3-D follows John Street, Wallace Street and Taranaki Street from the

end of Section 2 until the waterfront (purple line on Figure 29). Taranaki

Street is a major vehicle route into the CBD and a significant connection to

SH1 North. The route will require the following works:

• Kerb & Channel replacement, along with minimisation of the footpaths

to provide sufficient road width for on-road cycle lanes at a minimum

south of SH1 (Images 3&4). Other facility types may require property

take.

• Reconfiguration of the signalised intersections through the route to

make them safer and more suitable for cycle movements.

Option 3-D has the advantages:

• Travels past Massey University & Wellington High School;

• Has a wide width north of SH1 (Image 1&2);

• Is relatively direct; and

• Provides a connection into the centre of the CBD.

It has the following disadvantages:

• Has similarly high traffic flows to Adelaide Road;

• Is undulating involving more than one relatively steep climb and

descent. This is particularly evident in southbound direction on the

approach to the main entrance to Wellington High School; and in both

directions in the vicinity of the main entrance to Massey University;

• On Wallace Street south of SH1 the carriageway widths are narrow due to

topography and property boundaries; and

• The route is a passenger transport route despite the low road widths.

Figure 29: Section 3 Routes – Option 3-D

2

1

3

4

John Street




A visual comparison between the elevations for each of the Section 3 options is shown

in Figure 30 below. The length of reach is easily identified. Clearly Option 3-A

encounters less grades and is shorter than the parallel routes.


Option 3-B

Option 3-C

Option 3-D

Option 3-A

N S




Section 3 provides the final connection into the CBD for the cycleway. To cater for the

needs of both existing and new cyclists a range of route options and treatments have

been considered.

Option 3-A along Adelaide Road and Cambridge / Kent Terrace is seen as the best route

for existing commuter cyclists. It is the most direct of the routes available. It is flat and

has a wide cross-sectional width allowing fast and easy travel across Section 3. This

route will continue to be used by existing cyclists whether alternative facility is provided

on it or not. To attract new cyclists and improve the corridor for existing users, it should

be made to feel safer.

A level of separation will be required as the route sees some of the heaviest traffic flows

in Wellington City. Bus lanes approximately 3m wide are currently provided in each

direction. Providing wide bus lanes (>4.5m wide) or a shared path on Adelaide Road

would require land acquisition and are therefore not considered viable unless as part of

a package of passenger transport improvements.

The improvements around the Basin Reserve are intended to improve conditions for

cyclists travelling between Adelaide Road and the CBD. North of the Basin Reserve,

treatments for Option 3-A could include:

• Northbound cycle lane following the central median;

• A shared-use path along the western side of Cambridge Terrace; or

• Widen existing bus lanes to more than 4.2m (Ideally 4.5m).

All of the above options would involve removal of one line of parking from Kent /

Cambridge Terrace. The provision of a shared use path would involve relocation of kerb

and channels and associated cost. Facilities following the central median are likely to

involve changes to the traffic signal phasing at intersections. Green time would be taken

from other movements and given to cyclists. Whilst this is possible it would

disadvantage both state highway traffic and the Adelaide Road and bus tunnel

passenger transport corridors.

Given that Option 3-A has significantly high traffic volumes, new cyclists may need

more comfort than that provided in the existing bus lanes. For this reason there is merit

in also providing a “quiet street” approach in combination with Option 3-A. Option 3-C

therefore provides an opportunity to designate a facility for cyclists from Tory Street all

the way to Adelaide Road south of John Street. The route would be treated with cycle

directional signing, low-intervention traffic calming (e.g. measures to visually narrow

the roads) to highlight the presence of cyclists on the route. North of Rugby Street, road

space should be re-allocated to provide a cycle lane or a shared path on the eastern side

of Tory and Tasman Streets. From an urban design perspective this could work well

with Memorial Park, making the route more amenable. A cycle lane on the eastern side

of Tory Street would only for southbound cyclists. A shared path could provide for

cyclists travelling in both directions.



7.4 Preferred Cycleway Route & Treatments

A number of different cycleway routes and treatment options have been considered for a

cycleway between Island Bay and the CBD. The routes have been assessed on their ability to

attract new and maintain existing commuter cyclists. Characteristics desired for these users

include a route that is flat and direct as long as it can be made to feel safe. Given the

physical characteristics of the study area these desires are difficult to achieve. However, the

following route option combination is considered to best achieve these aims:

• Route Option 1-A following The Parade is constructed with on-road cycle lanes;

• Route Option 2-A is installed with on-road cycle lanes or a shared-use path facility

along Adelaide Road; and

• Route Option 3-A is developed with either on-road cycle lanes accommodated within

the bus lanes or a shared-path facility along Adelaide Road and Cambridge / Kent

Terrace to cater for commuter cyclists.

In addition to the above a quiet, low traffic route following Option 2-D and Option 3-C

down Stoke Street, Hanson Street, Tasman Street and Tory Street could also be constructed.

The route would be included to serve new, less confident cyclists away from the central,

heavily trafficked corridor on Kent / Cambridge Terrace and involve:

• cycle directional signing, low-intervention traffic calming (e.g. measures to visually

narrow the roads) and treatments to highlight the presence of cyclists between Stoke

Street and the south of Rugby Street; and

• North of Rugby Street, road space should be re-allocated to provide a southbound cycle

lane or a shared path on the eastern side of Tory and Tasman Streets.



8 Cost Estimates & Efficiency Forecasts

8.1 Cost Estimates

This section focuses on the methodology used to produce Option Estimates (OE’s) for the

preferred option detailed in Chapter 7.4. The purpose of the OE’s is to compare project

options based on limited information. They provide the financial information that will

confirm the preferred option, determine the financial and economic viability of the project

and will ultimately determine whether or not a project proceeds.

The estimates and base estimate schedules are provided in Appendix B. The estimates have

generally been prepared and reviewed in accordance with NZTA’s ‘Cost Estimation Manual’

(SM014) and Opus’ internal ‘Cost Estimating Guidelines’. They reflect the estimated out

turn costs and level of uncertainty on the project at this time.

8.1.1 Assumptions & Exclusions

The estimates are based on the following major assumptions:

• Each option is tendered and constructed in their entirety. Any splitting of options

into parts may incur modified rates. Reasons for this include economies of scale

and/or respreads of overheads.

• Lump Sum costs have been included in the estimate for Service Relocations. Scope

of these works is generally unknown and carries a high risks, especially on shared

facility options. Additionally an allowance has been made in the expected and

95%ile rates for the uncertainty in base quantities, rates and risk accordingly.

• Construction programmes have not been developed at this phase. Indicative

timeframes have been assumed to be between 8 and 16 months on the basis of

length and type of construction required.

The following items have been excluded from the estimates:

• GST;

• The estimate is based on rates as at 3rd Quarter 2012. No allowance has been made

for escalation beyond this point;

• Project property costs;

• Consenting;

• Stakeholder Consultation; and

• Operational costs associated with the project outcome.

8.1.2 Quantities & Rates

The estimates have been prepared after undertaking a site walkover, route option review

and using a rate per metre when looking at on road, off road or shared cycle/pedestrian

facilities. The rates have been developed using either, or a combination of the following

methods:

• Resource-based; and



• Rates taken from previous projects and adjusted, where deemed necessary, to reflect

the relevance, currency and scale relative to this project.

The Base Estimate Schedules have been broken down into:

• Investigation & Reporting Phase;

• Design and Project Documentation phase; and

• Construction phase (including all MSQA fees and WCC managed costs).

Note that:

• Investigation, design and supervision fees, plus client managed costs (excluding

consenting and Stakeholder consultation) have been included as a percentage of the

cost of the physical works costs; and

• P & G costs have been calculated using a percentage of the cost of physical works,

based on projects of a similar size and complexity.

8.1.3 Risk Assessment

No formal risk analysis was carried out for this estimate. Contingency and funding risks

have been assessed using the Hong Kong Government Works Branch procedure called

‘Estimating using Risk Analysis’ (ERA). This is a widely recognised method for assessing

uncertainty and risk.

The base estimate is calculated using appropriate rates and quantities by the estimator

for the scope of the works decided. A degree of uncertainty is inherent in the estimating

process, with the greater degree of uncertainty being present in the early development

phases (i.e. Option Estimate phase).

There is no discrete value that identifies the cost of a project. Rather, there is a range of

values that reflects the uncertainty in the predicted outcome. Table 18 shows the Base,

Expected and 95%ile outturn costs for each option.

8.1.4 Option Estimates

Estimates for six full route options have been prepared. A summary of the estimates is

provided in Table 18. Four estimates have been provided for comparative purposes

(Items A-D) against different options along the preferred route stated in Chapter 7.4

(Item E & F). Clearly providing on-road cycle lanes will reduce the total cost of the

project. On-road cycle lanes can typically be provided within the existing carriageway

thereby minimising costs. Off-road facilities have the potential to affect services during

kerb and channel replacement brought about from road widening. Additionally from the

estimates the impact of traversing either MacAlister Park (Option 2-B) or Berhampore

Golf Course (Option 2-C) has been demonstrated (Items C & D).

Note that generally under NZTA’s ‘Cost Estimation Manual’ (SM014), funding allocation

is based on the Expected Estimate including escalation. Please note that escalation has

not been included in the costs below.



Table 18: Summary of Estimates

Item Route

Costs ($M)

Base Expected

(Contingency) 95%ile

(Funding Risk)

A 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) $1.75 $2.43 $2.92

B 1-A (on-road), 2-A, 3-A (off-road) $6.13 $8.42 $9.94

C 1-A (on-road), 2-C (part off-road) & 3-A (on-road)

$2.56 $3.49 $4.02

D 1-A (on-road), 2-B (off-road), 2-A , 2d, 3c (part-off road)

3.68 $4.99 $5.81

E 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D (on-road) & 3-C (part off-road)

$3.80 $5.21 $6.13

F 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D & 3-C (on-road) $3.27 $4.50 $5.34

8.2 Economic Analysis

The economic analysis has been completed to align with NZTA’s Economic Evaluation

Manual Volume 2 (EEM-2), Chapter 8 “Evaluation of Walking & Cycling”. The EEM-2

chapter describes the methods for economic efficiency evaluations of improved facilities for

walking and cycling. The EEM-2 simplified procedure “SP11” has been adopted for this

analysis. The economic results are described in the remainder of this Chapter.

8.2.1 User Forecasts

In the SP11 procedure the number of existing and future forecast cyclists using the

cycleway is a critical input into the economic calculations. For this reason the daily

number of existing and new cyclists likely to use the cycleway was investigated. In New

Zealand three methods commonly used for undertaking these tasks include:

• NZTA’s EEM;

• Existing peak hour counts in combination with the “Cycle network and route

planning guide - Appendix 2” (LTSA, 2003); and

• LTNZ research report 340;

Each method has its own advantages and could potentially be applicable to the project.

For consistency, each method was tested as a starting point and then critiqued before

selecting the most robust approach. The forecasts and issues present by each method

are detailed in Appendix C. The following forecast procedure has been adopted

specifically for this project:

• For existing cyclist numbers, a 2012 cycle count completed by WCC at the Adelaide /

John Street intersection was used. The intersection is roughly the mid-point along

the study corridor. The daily count has been projected from “actual peak counts”

using the “Cycle network & planning guide - Appendix 2” methodology;

• The number of new cyclists attracted to the facility has been projected using the

percentage increase calculated from the EEM (cycle shed) methodology. The EEM



methodology has been revised to account for Wellington’s topography. It was

assumed that there would be no new cyclists from the population living further than

800m from the cycle facility. The excluded population are located in neighbouring

valleys (i.e. Happy Valley or Lyall Bay) and would therefore follow alternative routes

to travel to the CBD.

Table 19 shows the resulting forecasts which have been carried through for the

economic analysis.

Table 19: Forecast Daily Trips on the cycleway

2012 Daily Cyclists Predicted New Daily Cyclists

Total Daily Cycle Trips

% Increase Above Existing

439 400 839 91%

8.2.2 Benefits Streams

The user benefits (costs savings) that are accounted for in the economic analysis and

their respective assumptions are as follows:

(i) New Cyclist Health and Traffic Reduction Benefits;

Daily cycle benefits attributable to the new facility have been calculated

according to the calculation methodology provided in SP11 worksheet 5. An

average journey distance of half the cycleway route length has been adopted for

a conservative estimate of the benefits.

(ii) Existing Cyclist Travel Time Cost Savings;

The cycleway is likely to provide minor increases in travel time savings for

existing commuter cyclists. For this reason it has been assumed that:

• The value of time has been taken from Table A4.1 in the EEM;

• 80% of cycle trips are for commuting to/from work purposes;

• 20 % of cycle trips are for other non-work travel purposes; and

• No cycle trips work travel purpose.

• The cycleway will increase cycle travel speeds by 10%, therefore reducing

travel times. The average speed of an existing commuter cyclist has been

estimated to be 15 km/h8.

(iii) Existing Cyclist Crash Cost Savings.

An Accident by Accident methodology aligned with method A6 in the EEM

(volume 1) has been used to determine the historic crash costs for the route

following the central corridor (Route 1-A, 2-A and 3-A) and the combination

(Route 1-A, 2-A, 3-A, 2-D and 3-C). Note the crash totals in Table 20 only

include crashes on The Parade, Adelaide Road, Kent / Cambridge Terrace

through to Cable Street, Stoke Street and Tasman / Tory Street (01/07/2007 to

8 “Minute ventilation of cyclists, car and bus passengers: an experimental study, Zuurbier et al, 2009”



01/07/2012). The totals are therefore different to those presented in Chapter

5.5 by accounting for a reduced crash search area.

Table 20: Cyclist Injury Totals on defined corridor (01/07/2007 – 01/07/2012)

Item Route Fatal Serious Minor Non-Injury

Total

A-B 1-A, 2-A, 3-A 0 8 30 6 44

E-F 1-A, 2-A, 3-A,

2-D & 3-C 0 10 41 6 57

The following assumptions for the crash analysis have also been adopted:

• The cycle facility whether it is either on-road cycle lanes or a shared path

facility will result in a 25% decrease in cycle crashes (International research

has shown that cycle-lanes can reduce crashes from anywhere between 35-

50%9). Sensitivities to this assumption is tested in Chapter 8.2.5;

• The road network is considered “Urban Arterial”;

• Background traffic growth is 2% as per the Wellington traffic growth

assumptions in A2-10 of the EEM; and

• Vehicle speeds are the same as the posted speed limit at 50 km/h.

In addition to the benefit details above it is noted that:

• No perceived Quality / Comfort benefits have been included in the analysis.

• The Health & Travel Time benefit streams have been projected from the 2012 values

into 2022 and 2032 future year values to account for anticipated cycle growth. Cycle

growth for the study corridor has been assumed to be 5.82% per annum as stated in

Chapter 5.4.

8.2.3 Option BCR Values

For the option BCR calculations the following economic assumptions have been

assumed:

• All costs and benefits have been discounted to the 1st of July 2013 (Time zero)

• An 8% discount rate as recommended by the EEM has been used to discount the

costs and benefits to time zero over a 30 year analysis period;

• The latest update factors (July 2012 base date) have been applied;

• A construction period of 12 months starting the 1st of July 2014 is programmed;

• The pre-discounted capital construction costs are the same as those detailed in

Chapter 8.1;

• Maintenance costs are assumed to be 1% of the capital costs per annum. The figure

accounts for periodic and annual maintenance; and

• No capping of the benefits has occurred.

With the benefit streams and costs calculated, the following BCR values have been

determined as shown in Table 21. The full economic worksheet utilised in the analysis

9 NZTA Economics Evaluation Manual Volume 1 (2010) - Page A6-42.



are provided in Appendix D. For simplicity at this high level stage, the benefits are

assumed to be the same for each facility type variation with the difference coming in the

capital costs. Clearly the route following the central route corridor offers the biggest

financial return on investment. With a BCR of 6.4 it can meet the “High” economic

efficiency rating. The preferred “Combination Option” has a BCR of 3.7 if on-road cycle

lanes are assumed. This aligns it with the “Medium” economic efficiency rating.

Table 21: BCR values for Central Corridor & Combination Option

Item Route & Treatment Discounted

Benefits ($NPV) Discounted Costs ($NPV)

BCR

A 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) $15.49 Million $2.41 Million 6.4

B 1-A (on-road), 2-A, 3-A (off-road) $15.49 Million $8.34 Million 1.9

E 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D (on-road) & 3-C (off-road) $16.51 Million $5.16 Million 3.2

F 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D & 3-C (on-road) $16.51 Million $4.46 Million 3.7

8.2.4 First Year Rate of Return

The First Year Rate of Return (FYRR) is a good assessment to determine the start date

for activities. As the calculation FYRR shown in Table 22 are consistently above the

discount rate all the options will provide an immediate return on investment.

Table 22: First Year Rate of Return

Item Route & Treatment 1st Year Benefits

($) Total Costs (NPV$)

FYRR

A 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) $1.01 Million $2.41 Million 42%

B 1-A (on-road), 2-A, 3-A (off-road) $1.01 Million $8.34 Million 12%

E 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D (on-road) & 3-C (off-road) $1.01 Million $5.16 Million 21%

F 1-A, 2-A, 3-A (on-road) +

2-D & 3-C (on-road) $1.01 Million $4.46 Million 25%

8.2.5 Preferred Option & Sensitivity Tests

As discussed in Chapter 7.4 the project team felt an option catering for both confident

and inexperienced cyclists would be preferred by the community. For this reason the

combination option is preferred. Sensitivity tests have also been completed to

determine the effect of different attributes on the project BCR is shown in Table 23.



Table 23: Sensitivity Tests on Preferred Option BCR (note rounding)

Sensitivity Test

Route & Treatment Option BCR

Comments Item E

On-road + Off-road

Item F

On-road only

Base Case 3.2 3.7 See Section 8.2.3

No Safety Benefits 2.4 2.7

Most of the benefits included in the base case for both Options are attributable to new users

No new users 0.9 1.1

Lower cost measures that improve safety but do not attract new users can achieve a BCR > 1.

Attracts only 50% of forecast new users

2.0 2.4 Cycle lanes are efficient even with 50% of the users forecast.

Attracts 50% more new users than

forecast 4.3 5.0

Studies have found that off-road paths are more attractive to new users than cycle lanes.

As shown in the table, the majority of the project benefits are related to the health

improvements gained by new users. The BCR’s achieved by each treatment type are

strongly influenced by the relative cost of each option. The lower implementation cost of

on-road cycle lanes make this an efficient treatment even where only half the new users

are realised. The efficiency of the shared path treatment is strongly dependent on its

ability to attract new users.

8.2.6 Economic Efficiency Summary

A high-level economic analysis has been completed for the preferred option and other

variations. At this feasibility level it has been identified that a cycleway option with on-

road cycle lanes can achieve a BCR of 3.7 thus aligning the cycleway with NZTA’s

“Medium” efficiency criteria. However the if on-road cycle lanes are only installed on

sections 1-A to 3-A along the central corridor a BCR of 6.4 aligning with the “High”

funding criteria can result.



9 NZTA Funding Assessment Profile

In this section the preferred cycleway route between Island Bay and the CBD has been

assessed to determine its likelihood of receiving NZTA Funding. This has been derived by

examining the proposed option’s characteristics in relation to the Elements in the NZTA

Funding Assessment Framework as described in Section 3. As stated previously this

includes rating the cycleway project alignment against the three funding criteria:

• Strategic Fit of the problem, issue or opportunity that is being addressed;

• Effectiveness of the proposed solution; and

• Economic efficiency of the proposed solution.

The cycleway has been reviewed by assessing each of the above factors using a rating of

High, Medium or Low. Note that the Strategic Fit and Effectiveness assessments are generic

and applicable for both the on-road and off-road option. The Efficiency rating is related to

the BCR and will differ depending on the treatment option adopted. Table 24 summarises

the alignment of both options with the funding criteria assessment.

Table 24: NZTA Funding Criteria Assessment

Assessment Factor

Focus Description Rating

Strategic Fit The Island Bay to CBD corridor is one of the key urban transport links in Wellington City. The route is highly utilised for all transport modes and consequently heavy congestion is observed on a daily basis, particularly during peak periods. Population and employment estimates have demonstrated increased activity in the CBD which will place additional demand for travel on the route in the future.

With high existing traffic volumes and major intersections the route is not currently appealing to new or potential cyclists. Treatments that address this issue therefore have significant potential for attracting new cyclists.

A total of 8 serious injury and 30 minor injury cycle crashes have occurred on the 6.1 km central corridor over the last five years.

The cycleway can encourage commuter mode shift and thereby reduce congestion effects on a key route into the Wellington CBD area which is one of the region’s major economic drivers.

The catchment and demand for a facility in this corridor has significant potential to attract new users who will see increased health benefits. It will also make the CBD more accessible for the financially disadvantaged and those without access to a private vehicle.

The cycleway will enhance cycle safety along the 6.1km corridor. It will provide a reduction in actual crash risk thereby aligning it with the Safer Journeys Strategy

High



Effectiveness The cycleway will effectively assist active mode travel between island bay and the CBD. Analysis has demonstrated it will effectively attract new commuter uses and provide for safer cycle journeys.

The cycleway project has been found to align strongly with National, Regional and Local Strategic Policy and Transport Strategies. It meets the objectives of the LTMA and the requirements of the current GPS.

The preferred option has been derived following careful consideration of a number of alternatives. It has been developed as a strategic approach to transport activities on a critical corridor.

The cycleway will effectively reduce journey times by bike, improve safety and promote active mode travel. By addressing these areas it will improve the Level of Service provided for cycling activity between Island Bay and the CBD.

The cycleway will have enduring benefits by providing for travel within this corridor. Demand continues to grow along the spine and in the CBD.

High

Efficiency The project has economic benefits in terms of cyclist health, journey time savings and crash reductions.

At this early stage of the project development, the preferred combination option using the central corridor and Tasman / Tory Street has a BCR of 3.7 if on-road cycle lanes are constructed.

Medium

Using the priority order of profiles, NZTA will be in a position to rate the cycleway against

other activities that are considered for investment. Table 25 shows how the cycleway option

measures up against the NZTA prioritisation ratings for the preferred combination option

(from 1-11).

Table 25: Priority of Activities

Project Profile Priority Order

Island Bay to CBD Cycleway HHM 2

Based on the above result the cycleway project strongly aligns with NZTA’s funding

assessment criteria. The likelihood that it can receive funding is strong.



10 Summary and Conclusions

10.1 Summary

This study has set out to scope the feasibility of a cycle corridor between Island Bay and

Wellington City. A major consideration is the ability to attract NZTA funding support.

NZTA seek to support walking and cycling proposals that align with the Government

funding priorities set out in the GPS. NZTA will therefore prioritise funding towards cycling

schemes that:

• Provide an option for travelling to work in large urban congested cities;

• Attract new commuter cyclists; and / or

• Improve the safety of existing cyclists.

This study has demonstrated that the creation of a cycleway linking Island Bay and

Wellington CBD would have a “High” strategic fit with these objectives. The effectiveness of

the proposal is determined by the route that is promoted and the types of facility that can be

provided along the route. This study has investigated a number of feasible cycling

treatments and looked at how they could be combined to form a continuous route along the

corridor.

Cyclists’ needs and preferences have been shown to vary according to their trip purpose, but

more importantly according to their level of experience and resulting confidence. Research

on the characteristics of cyclists and potential commuter cyclists for this specific corridor

found that:

• Feeling safe is the most important consideration for potential new cyclists who also like

to avoid steep gradients. These cyclists are however willing to accept detours and a

slightly longer route to achieve this; and

• People that already cycle regularly also want to feel safe, but value speed and direct

routes more highly.

10.1.1 Alternative Investment Strategies

The cycleway needs to attract new cyclists and reduce the risk of crashes involving

current cyclists. The importance placed on different route / facility attributes changes

according to cyclists’ level of ability. As cyclists become more experienced and confident

they are concerned less with feeling safe and finding flat routes and are more focused on

choosing the fastest, most direct route. One approach would be to invest in each cycling

“stage of change” and provide facilities to cater to less confident cyclists and different

measures for more regular cyclists. Such an approach could involve providing different

routes to cater to the different types of cyclists or alternative facilities on the same route.

An alternative approach is to compromise and invest in measures that seek to meet the

needs of each of the cycling stages of change. Care needs to be taken to ensure

measures to benefit less confident cyclists are not to the detriment of those more

confident. For example, the removal of on-street parking and the provision of a shared

pathway could reduce the available carriageway width. More confident cyclists who



choose to continue cycling on-road may then become more pressured by motorists,

particularly at up-hill sections.

10.1.2 Options Assessed

The study team has broken down the corridor into three sections. On each section the

team has identified various routes. Following analysis and by considering the cyclist

needs and alternative investment strategies listed above, it was identified that providing

a route along The Parade through Island Bay should occur.

Between Island Bay and John Street the project team has identified a preference for a

central route following Adelaide Road. Between The Parade and John Street, Adelaide

Road is the main arterial route. It is the most direct of the alternative considered. It has

the least gradient and is along the desire line for travel between Island Bay and the City.

It allows good connections between a number of residential suburbs and is easily

accessible. However, it does not avoid the Berhampore Shops. The success of this route

depends on the extent to which new cyclists can be made to feel safe through the

provision of a high quality facility. This would require a significant change to the

existing situation, through the provision of a high quality facility.

At the city end of the corridor, north of John Street and Wellington Hospital, a route

could follow arterial routes including Kent / Cambridge Terraces and Adelaide Road.

The eastern and central route options in Section 2 naturally combine with treatments on

Adelaide Road and Kent / Cambridge Terraces. These arterial routes are currently most

popular with commuter cyclists because they are flat and direct. They also carry very

high traffic volumes which would mean that cyclists would need to be provided with

adequate separation from other road users. In combination it was found that a quiet

streets approach along Stoke, Hanson, Tasman and Tory would appropriately cater for

new and unconfident cyclists. The route could be integrated with the planned Memorial

Park. Unfortunately, there is a steep section on Tasman Street that would be challenging

for some cyclists. Additionally Tasman Street will limit the catchment area of the

cycleway route. No adjoining road connections link to it compared to Adelaide Road but

it does improve access for active mode travel to Massey University and Mount Cook

School.

Treatments on this preferred route combination were then identified. Through Island

Bay (along The Parade) on-road cycle-lanes were determined to be the best device due

to their minimal effect on adjacent property. On-road cycle lanes could be provided over

the central corridor from Island Bay through to John Street. However this is likely to

require the removal of a significant amount of on-street parking. The potential for a

shared-use path is also possible subject to cost. For the northern section from John

Street through to the CBD, it was proposed that cyclists utilise the existing bus lanes on

Adelaide Road and Kent / Cambridge Terrace. However, they are to be widened to 4.5m.

A shared-use path for the final section was also investigated. On Stoke, Hanson and

Tasman Street a mixture of low cost, safety enhancements can be completed. On Tory

Street an on-road cycle lane can be provided.

Cost estimates were prepared for the preferred scheme with on-road and off-road

treatments on Tory Street. The preferred scheme was found to have a cost of $4.50



Million. When run through the economics, accounting for additional crash savings a

BCR of 3.7 was calculated. The combination was therefore only able to align with the

“Medium” economic efficiency rating.

10.2 Recommended Investment Strategy

The recommended investment strategy is to:

• Provide improved conditions for cycling on the existing desire line for travel between

Island Bay and Wellington CBD;

• Follow the most direct route with the least steep gradients;

• Focus on increasing the perception of comfort and safety whilst also addressing any

identified crash problems; and

• Consider additional parallel routes for sections with significant attractors such as the

War Memorial or where there are low volume streets on the approach to the CBD, north

of the Adelaide Road / John Street intersection.

Interventions within this strategy include:

• Enhance and extend existing cycle lanes so there are continuous facilities in each

direction along The Parade through Island Bay;

• Providing on-road cycle lanes between Wakefield Park / MacAlister Park and John

Street. The provision of a cycle lane in each direction would require the removal of on-

street parking from both sides of the road. Cycle lanes could be provided for up-hill

sections only or clear zones could operate during peak periods only subject to

enforcement;

• Improving conditions for cycling on-road along Adelaide Road and Kent / Cambridge

Terrace between John Street and the CBD. This will service and ensure the safety of

more confident cyclists. It is envisaged that these cyclists will predominantly be catered

for within new and existing bus lanes widened to 4.5m. The importance of this route for

cyclists should be formally recognised such that there is a requirement to maintain or

enhance the level of service provided to them as the passenger transport spine is

developed; and

• Other considerations might include formally recognising a quiet, low traffic route

following Stoke Street, Hanson Street, Tasman Street and Tory Streets. South of Rugby

Street, the route would be treated with cycle directional signing, low-intervention traffic

calming (e.g. measures to visually narrow the roads) and other treatments to highlight

the presence of cyclists on the route. North of Rugby Street, road space should be re-

allocated to provide a southbound shared path or cycle lane on the eastern side of Tory

Street.



10.3 Conclusion

The proposed improvement scheme will cater to the needs of both existing cyclists as well as

encouraging new cyclists. The cycling corridor has a high strategic fit with the Government’s

policy objectives. This study has investigated a wide range of options and recommended an

option that will achieve the policy outcomes effectively and attain value for money. With the

efficiency of the scheme confirmed as being able to generate a BCR of 3.7, it is proposed that

the scheme receives the following NZTA funding assessment rating as shown in Table 26.

Table 26: Project Rating

Category Rating

Strategic Fit High

Effectiveness High

Efficiency Medium

Rating HHM Category 2

10.4 Recommendations

Given that a priority one rating has been identified for a cycleway concept, it is

recommended that the project is continued to the next stage of development. This will

include:

• Develop detailed designs and confirm the preferred option;

• Consultation with affected stakeholders; and

• Refine cost estimates.

wellington cycleway feasibility study - island bay to cbd...

Documents