Streamlining Public Transport Funding in Waikato District Council

 
S
i
m
p
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
 
Regional rates and investment approach
Waikato District Council 31 January 2024
 
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
 
Scope
Why?
Rating options?
Protecting local voices in public
transport.
 
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
 
To simplify and streamline the Waikato Region’s approach to public
transport investment:
Making it easier to implement the Regional Public Transport Plan and Metro
Spatial Plan Transport Programme
Improving integration of services.
Increasing flexibility.
Speeding up decision-making.
Reducing financial and contractual risks to councils.
 
Current Waikato approach
 
Typical NZ approach
 
A
r
e
a
s
 
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
 
r
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
 
f
u
n
d
e
d
 
b
y
 
W
R
C
 
Hamilton City
Hauraki District
Matamata-Piako District
Thames Coromandel District
 
W
e
r
e
 
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
 
a
t
 
t
h
e
 
l
o
c
a
l
 
s
h
a
r
e
 
o
f
 
n
e
t
c
o
s
t
 
 
W
h
y
?
 
Take you through some examples
 
C
a
s
e
 
S
t
u
d
y
 
Te Kūiti Connector
1 daily return service
8 x funding partners
 
Relying on this type of
arrangement will make
it harder to achieve and
sustain a regional
network
 
Waikato Regional
Public Transport
Plan – indicative
future network
 
LOCAL VOICE
INCORPORATED
INTO RPTP
 
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
 
P
u
b
l
i
c
 
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
U
s
e
 
We also want to change the
model to better reflect the
benefits of PT, including those
related to some existing
behaviour
 
Eg in Tamahere – parents drop off
children on the edge of the city to catch
services in to school
The Hospital is now being recommended
to use the Rotokauri hub and Glenview
Hub as informal Park and Ride
High volumes of sub division and growth
on the edges of HCC mean that lots more
people rely on efficient networks in the
city to access, shopping, healthcare,
employment and social opportunities.
The reduction in traffic as a result of bus
users is likley to have significant benefits
to every person that travels into Hamilton
or surrounds even drivers.
 
This looks at significant improvements
including 10 minute frequency
services that will connect
Ngaruwahia/Horotiu, areas around
the airport to each other on fast
services that bypass traffic. This will
mean that somebody living in Horotiu
can get to the CBD in 15 minutes by
bus or to future jobs at the Airport in
25-30 mins.
Equally those living in peri urban
locations will be able to drive to the
edges of the main towns – park up
and jump on a bus – or drop of
dependents etc…
 
A
n
d
 
f
u
t
u
r
e
 
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
 
I
n
 
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
,
 
n
e
w
 
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
 
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
 
h
a
s
 
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
 
t
o
:
 
Improve efficiency.
Support flexibility, innovation and responsiveness.
Better enable inter-district and inter-regional services.
Reduce financial and contractual risk to TAs and WRC.
Improve resilience.
Enable investment in strategic public transport infrastructure.
Improve equity of funding obligations.
 
H
o
w
?
 
How did we develop the options for rating?
 
D
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
 
Factors that informed the
options. Some options are better
at doing some things than others.
 
Fairness:
Costs can be allocated between direct and indirect
beneficiaries.
Ease of administration:
Minimise administrative burden.
Enabling integrated planning and operation:
Avoids barriers and creates opportunities for
integrated planning and delivery of the network.
Flexibility:
Enables the reallocation of funds between services
during an LTP.
Infrastructure enabled:
Could accommodate funding infrastructure in the
future.
 
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
 
r
a
n
g
e
 
f
r
o
m
 
v
e
r
y
 
l
o
c
a
l
,
 
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
 
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
 
t
o
 
g
l
o
b
a
l
,
 
p
u
b
l
i
c
 
a
n
d
 
i
n
t
e
r
-
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
 
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
c
r
o
s
s
 
a
l
l
 
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
 
All numbers are per annum, indicative & conservatively high – there is around $3m net of LCLR
funding in Year 2 (this would be close to a third on top of our continuous programme)
Direct access is walking distance ~800m
Indirect access is bike/scoot/drive to connect ~5km
The ‘Metro area’ is the area covered by the Metro Spatial Plan Transport Programme Business
Case.
PT IS ALREADY RATED IN SOME WAY BY THE DISTRICT – SO UNDER THE CURRENT MODEL
WAIKATO DISTRICT WILL BE RATING IN LINE WITH THE COSTS SET OUT IN OUR MODEL.
This is a more transparent approach as the rating for PT will be identified in the Regional Council
bill.
 
Cost allocation undertaken by
routes
Allocating those costs to the
areas served
Costs are allocated by district
and level of service
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
1
 
 
 
S
t
e
p
 
1
:
 
C
o
s
t
 
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
Need to identify who benefits
and therefore who pays
Separation between properties
with access to services based on
distance (800m) = direct benefit
80% of costs
Properties outside 5km =
indirect benefit 20% of costs
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
1
 
 
 
S
t
e
p
 
2
:
 
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
 
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
Metro costs are separated from
other areas
Cost 
is spread among all
properties within the metro area
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
2
 
 
 
S
t
e
p
 
1
:
 
C
o
s
t
 
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
Within metro area no
differentiation between
properties within 5km
Acknowledges network benefits
to all users including drivers
Outside metro area, 80% direct
recovery – properties within
5km, 20% indirect across district.
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
2
 
 
 
S
t
e
p
 
2
:
 
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
 
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
1
 
80 % targeted to areas with
direct access
20 % targeted to areas with
indirect access
 
O
p
t
i
o
n
 
2
(
p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
)
 
80 % targeted to areas with direct + indirect
access (yellow areas)
20% regional benefit
Hamilton/Waikato metro-area ring-fenced.
(all properties in here pay the same)
 
H
o
w
 
d
o
e
s
 
e
a
c
h
 
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
 
a
f
f
e
c
t
 
t
h
e
 
r
a
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
f
i
l
e
?
 
R
a
g
l
a
n
 
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
 
For a property in Raglan within 800m of a Bus Stop, CV $2m
 
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
 
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
 
o
f
 
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
 
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
 
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
 
o
f
 
a
 
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
 
p
o
l
i
c
y
?
 
T
h
e
 
l
o
c
a
l
 
v
o
i
c
e
 
How public transport investment will
be decided
T
h
e
 
l
e
g
a
l
 
b
a
s
i
s
Land Transport Management
Act 2002
 Regional Councils and Unitary Authorities:
Eligible for investment from the 
National
Land Transport Fund
.
Responsible for preparing the 
Regional Public
Transport Plan
.
Responsible for 
procuring public transport
services
.
Can 
own public transport assets
.
Can 
run public transport services
.
To be eligible for NLTF investment 
services must
be 
identified in a
Regional Public Transport Plan.
Having a role in deciding what is
in the RPTP is critical.
 
W
h
o
 
d
e
c
i
d
e
s
 
w
h
a
t
g
o
e
s
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
p
l
a
n
?
 
WRC has delegated to:
 
Regional Transport Committee
- overall responsibility for the RPTP.
- preparing, reviewing and consulting on the
RPTP
- recommending 
significant changes to the RPTP
to WRC.
 
Future Proof PT Subcommittee
- making non-significant change to the PT Plan.
- Advising the RTC on RPTP as it relates to the
Future Proof sub-region.
Waikato Regional
Council
Regional Transport
Committee
Future Proof Public Transport
Subcommittee
Regional PT Plan
Non-significant changes
Plan reviews and significant  changes
 
W
h
a
t
s
 
n
e
x
t
?
 
S
o
m
e
 
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
 
i
n
 
t
h
e
 
s
h
o
r
t
 
t
e
r
m
 
Government is updating Government Policy Statement on Land
Transport (to be released some time early 2024) – until then
some uncertainty over:
NLTF PT Investment levels.
Criteria for NLTF investment.
 
This will lead to uncertainty over a large proportion of the net
budget going into the LTP
 
L
o
n
g
 
T
e
r
m
 
P
l
a
n
 
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
 
WRC currently confirming consultation questions for LTP 2024-34:
Whether to rate for and fund PT Regionally.
Preferred option
TAs to signal through Long Term Plan consultation (except HCC, HDC,
MPDC, TCDC:
WRC is considering taking on rating and funding PT regionally
Therefore – TA funding of PT may no longer be required.
 
Implementation from year 2 (2025) – allowing for more certainty of
investment required and some detail to be fleshed out.
 
T
h
a
n
k
 
y
o
u
 
Sarah Loynes, Manager Transport Policy and Programmes
sarah.loynes@waikatoregion.govt.nz
Nigel King, Team Leader Transport Policy and Programmes
nigel.king@waikatoregion.govt.nz
undefined
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Simplifying and streamlining the public transport funding approach in Waikato District Council to enhance integration, flexibility, and decision-making, while reducing financial risks. The objective is to make it easier to implement the Regional Public Transport Plan and improve the overall transport program.


Uploaded on Mar 26, 2024 | 1 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Simplifying public transport Simplifying public transport funding funding Regional rates and investment approach Waikato District Council 31 January 2024

  2. Contents Contents Scope Why? Rating options? Protecting local voices in public transport.

  3. Objective Objective To simplify and streamline the Waikato Region s approach to public transport investment: Making it easier to implement the Regional Public Transport Plan and Metro Spatial Plan Transport Programme Improving integration of services. Increasing flexibility. Speeding up decision-making. Reducing financial and contractual risks to councils.

  4. Typical NZ approach Current Waikato approach

  5. Areas currently rated Areas currently rated and funded by WRC and funded by WRC Hamilton City Hauraki District Matamata-Piako District Thames Coromandel District

  6. Were looking at the local share of net We re looking at the local share of net cost cost Total cost of service (gross cost) User vs public pays NLTF vs Local funding User/fares (20%) 100% Rates (49%) Public (80%) NLTF (51%)

  7. Why? Why? Take you through some examples

  8. Case Study Case Study Te K iti Connector 1 daily return service 8 x funding partners

  9. Waikato Regional Public Transport Plan indicative future network Relying on this type of arrangement will make it harder to achieve and sustain a regional network

  10. LOCAL VOICE INCORPORATED INTO RPTP

  11. Current Public Transport Use Current Public Transport Use Eg in Tamahere parents drop off children on the edge of the city to catch services in to school The Hospital is now being recommended to use the Rotokauri hub and Glenview Hub as informal Park and Ride High volumes of sub division and growth on the edges of HCC mean that lots more people rely on efficient networks in the city to access, shopping, healthcare, employment and social opportunities. The reduction in traffic as a result of bus users is likley to have significant benefits to every person that travels into Hamilton or surrounds even drivers. We also want to change the model to better reflect the benefits of PT, including those related to some existing behaviour

  12. And future investment And future investment This looks at significant improvements including 10 minute frequency services that will connect Ngaruwahia/Horotiu, areas around the airport to each other on fast services that bypass traffic. This will mean that somebody living in Horotiu can get to the CBD in 15 minutes by bus or to future jobs at the Airport in 25-30 mins. Equally those living in peri urban locations will be able to drive to the edges of the main towns park up and jump on a bus or drop of dependents etc

  13. In summary, new regional funding has the In summary, new regional funding has the potential to: potential to: Improve efficiency. Support flexibility, innovation and responsiveness. Better enable inter-district and inter-regional services. Reduce financial and contractual risk to TAs and WRC. Improve resilience. Enable investment in strategic public transport infrastructure. Improve equity of funding obligations.

  14. How? How? How did we develop the options for rating?

  15. Fairness: Costs can be allocated between direct and indirect beneficiaries. Desirable Desirable characteristics characteristics Ease of administration: Minimise administrative burden. Enabling integrated planning and operation: Avoids barriers and creates opportunities for integrated planning and delivery of the network. Factors that informed the options. Some options are better at doing some things than others. Flexibility: Enables the reallocation of funds between services during an LTP. Infrastructure enabled: Could accommodate funding infrastructure in the future.

  16. Benefits range from very local, immediate and Benefits range from very local, immediate and individual to global, public and inter individual to global, public and inter- -generational generational

  17. Assumptions across all options Assumptions across all options All numbers are per annum, indicative & conservatively high there is around $3m net of LCLR funding in Year 2 (this would be close to a third on top of our continuous programme) Direct access is walking distance ~800m Indirect access is bike/scoot/drive to connect ~5km The Metro area is the area covered by the Metro Spatial Plan Transport Programme Business Case. PT IS ALREADY RATED IN SOME WAY BY THE DISTRICT SO UNDER THE CURRENT MODEL WAIKATO DISTRICT WILL BE RATING IN LINE WITH THE COSTS SET OUT IN OUR MODEL. This is a more transparent approach as the rating for PT will be identified in the Regional Council bill.

  18. Option 1 Option 1 Step 1: Cost Allocation Step 1: Cost Allocation Cost allocation undertaken by routes Allocating those costs to the areas served Costs are allocated by district and level of service

  19. Option 1 Option 1 Step 2: Benefit Allocation Step 2: Benefit Allocation Need to identify who benefits and therefore who pays Separation between properties with access to services based on distance (800m) = direct benefit 80% of costs Properties outside 5km = indirect benefit 20% of costs

  20. Option 2 Option 2 Step 1: Cost Allocation Step 1: Cost Allocation Metro costs are separated from other areas Cost is spread among all properties within the metro area

  21. Option 2 Option 2 Step 2: Benefit Allocation Step 2: Benefit Allocation Within metro area no differentiation between properties within 5km Acknowledges network benefits to all users including drivers Outside metro area, 80% direct recovery properties within 5km, 20% indirect across district.

  22. irect access ndirect access Option 1 Option 1 80 % targeted to areas with direct access 20 % targeted to areas with indirect access

  23. Option 2 Option 2 (preferred) (preferred) ndirect access Region ide 80 % targeted to areas with direct + indirect access (yellow areas) ndirect access Region ide 20% regional benefit Hamilton/Waikato metro-area ring-fenced. (all properties in here pay the same)

  24. How does each approach affect the rating How does each approach affect the rating profile? profile? STATUS QUO Commentary EAST WAIKATO (MPDC/HAURAKI/TCDC) Hamilton These numbers are to be confirmed - they are for comparison purposes only - they could fall due to changes in Low Cost Low Risk bid to central government Stats urban defined District-wide $9.11 NZ 800m walk up District-wide $32.00 OPTION 1 - Access $6.21 $0.81 Commentary EAST WAIKATO (MPDC/HAURAKI/TCDC) HAMILTON The move to an access focussed approach concentrates more cost to those within walking distance even in Hamilton. The 5km buffer makes a small difference. 800m walk up 5km Drive up 800m walk up 5km Drive up $31.81 OPTION 2 $6.02 $16.16 $1.59 Commentary EAST WAIKATO (MPDC/HAURAKI/TCDC) METRO (HAMILTON/PARTS OF WAIPA AND WAIKATO) The metro area approach would mean that Hamilton ratepayers would have a reduced rate. This is as a result of more properties paying the metro rate with parts of Waipa and Waikato District paying a greater share for all the buses in metro area. Within 5km District-wide Within 5km District-wide $26.74 $4.87 $6.68 $0.34

  25. Raglan example Raglan example For a property in Raglan within 800m of a Bus Stop, CV $2m CV/$100k STATUS QUO Walk up 800m UNKNOWN RATED LOCALLY Under Option 1, the cost of Waikato services is spread over the TLA, this means that Raglan properties would pay the same as those in Huntly and Pokeno. Under the metro approach, services going to into Hamilton from the metro area (including Huntly, Te Kowhai, Tamahere etc are paid for through property in the Metro area. This leaves Raglan paying for more rural services along with Pokeno OPTION 1 800m walk up $42.35 OPTION 2 Within 5km $3.46 For a property worth $2m STATUS QUO Walk up 800m UNKNOWN RATED LOCALLY OPTION 1 800m walk up $847.02 OPTION 2 Within 5km $69.10

  26. Summary assessment of options against Summary assessment of options against desired characteristics of a funding policy? desired characteristics of a funding policy? Fairness Ease of administration Enabling integration Flexibility Infrastructure enabled Option 1 Medium High Medium Medium Medium Option 2 High Medium High High High

  27. The local voice The local voice How public transport investment will be decided

  28. Regional Councils and Unitary Authorities: Eligible for investment from the National Land Transport Fund. Responsible for preparing the Regional Public Transport Plan. Responsible for procuring public transport services. Can own public transport assets. Can run public transport services. The legal basis The legal basis Land Transport Management Act 2002 To be eligible for NLTF investment services must be identified in a Regional Public Transport Plan. Having a role in deciding what is in the RPTP is critical.

  29. Who decides what Who decides what goes in the plan? goes in the plan? WRC has delegated to: Regional PT Plan Waikato Regional Council Regional Transport Committee - overall responsibility for the RPTP. - preparing, reviewing and consulting on the RPTP - recommending significant changes to the RPTP to WRC. Regional Transport Committee Future Proof PT Subcommittee - making non-significant change to the PT Plan. - Advising the RTC on RPTP as it relates to the Future Proof sub-region. Future Proof Public Transport Subcommittee Non-significant changes Plan reviews and significant changes

  30. Whats next? What s next?

  31. Some uncertainty in the short term Some uncertainty in the short term Government is updating Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (to be released some time early 2024) until then some uncertainty over: NLTF PT Investment levels. Criteria for NLTF investment. This will lead to uncertainty over a large proportion of the net budget going into the LTP

  32. Long Term Plan Consultations Long Term Plan Consultations WRC currently confirming consultation questions for LTP 2024-34: Whether to rate for and fund PT Regionally. Preferred option TAs to signal through Long Term Plan consultation (except HCC, HDC, MPDC, TCDC: WRC is considering taking on rating and funding PT regionally Therefore TA funding of PT may no longer be required. Implementation from year 2 (2025) allowing for more certainty of investment required and some detail to be fleshed out.

  33. Thank you Thank you Sarah Loynes, Manager Transport Policy and Programmes sarah.loynes@waikatoregion.govt.nz Nigel King, Team Leader Transport Policy and Programmes nigel.king@waikatoregion.govt.nz

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#