Research Report: Patronage research for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project

Transcription

1 Research Report: Patronage research for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway project Prepared June 214 for: 2 June of 45

2 Contents 1. Executive Summary Background Methodology Survey Findings Comparisons with previous (213) research findings Current commuting method Seasonal use Weekly use Peak times SkyPath Approach A SkyPath Approach B Likely parking areas Likelihood of bus and shuttle use Preference in relation to Northern Link pathway Southern routes Cycle/walk combination for recreational users Interest in bicycle rentals Interest in add on experiences Application to Demand Projection Model Recreational & Commuter Patronage Proportions Domestic & International Visitor Patronage Combined Trip Numbers Residents & Visitors Appendices Demographics Questionnaire June of 45

3 1. Executive Summary The SkyPath concept was developed by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust (the Trust) to close a critical gap in Auckland s cycling and walking network. During the second half of 213, Angus & Associates was engaged by Auckland Council to provide a review of previous patronage forecasts and other documentation, as well as to conduct additional primary research into potential user groupings. Primary research considered the different aspects of use, as well as the development of a demand projection model estimating potential trips for the first 2 years of operation. The 213 demand projection model was based on conservative assumptions and included total yearly patronage estimates for the main market segments, namely domestic and international visitors to Auckland, as well as Auckland residents. The projection model excluded a number of potential market segments, such as cruise ships and tour groups, as well as specific child visitation. Subsequent to this first round of research, Auckland Council and the Trust asked Angus & Associates to refine the total estimates further in order to derive more clarity about specific variations in demand over the course of the year, a typical week and a typical day/time for planning purposes. To this end another round of primary quantitative research was conducted with Auckland residents. This report refers to the findings of the previous research as 213 research and to the current findings as 214 research. Survey comparisons: The 214 survey repeated the sample of Auckland residents and also the measures of interest and propensity to use SkyPath. These were included to match previous research outcomes as closely as possible in order to be able to apply the current findings to the 213 demand estimation. A comparison of the 213 and 214 results shows very similar levels of interest and use propensity. Both surveys measured the respective proportions of respondents indicating some likelihood to use SkyPath for recreation and/or commuting purposes. These respondents where then asked questions relating to their recreationaland/or commuting use of SkyPath. Current commuting methods: Respondents of the 214 survey who indicated they would use SkyPath for commuting were asked by which methods they currently commute to and from their place of work or study. There are distinct variations in the modes of transport favoured; however motor vehicles are the most common form of commuter transport. Use Patterns: The survey also included a set of questions asking respondents to estimate their use of SkyPath (based on proportions of use totalling to 1%). This set of questions was asked in relation to the seasons, weekly use, time of day, as well as the method/mode of transport to approach SkyPath. Please note that in this analysis, a trip refers to one trip over SkyPath. A return journey comprises two trips. 2 June of 45

4 The results suggest that, on average, 4% of commuter and 45% of recreational trips could be undertaken during the summer months, whilst the winter period is expected to represent the low season with a significantly smaller number of trips for both commuting (16%) and recreational purposes (12%). Applying the proportions to a typical week suggests that over 73% of recreational trips could be taken on a weekend. Commuting trips are likely to be spread more evenly across the entire week. Data also suggests that recreational use of SkyPath could be highest from morning to midday, whilst commuting trips could be spread somewhat more evenly throughout the day with large proportions expecting to use SkyPath during the traditional morning rush hour periods. Approach to SkyPath: Respondents were asked which method they might use to approach SkyPath. On 39% of all recreational trips, users believe they would drive close to the Harbour Bridge and park in local areas, whilst on commuting trips this proportion is just under a quarter. On approximately 77% of all commuting trips and 62% of all recreational trips, survey data indicates that SkyPath would be approached by other means. Of those who would drive to and attempt to park near SkyPath, sizeable proportions would park in the areas surrounding the Southern and Northern landings of SkyPath. Results also show clear preferences by residents to the North and South of the Harbour Bridge. Northern residents unsurprisingly would favour parking areas in Northcote Point and Takapuna, whilst Southern residents would favour the Westhaven, Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay, Wynyard Quarter and CBD areas. A follow up question was asked of the proportion of respondents who had indicated to drive close and park in local areas about the changes in their behaviour if no local parking was available. The majority of these users indicated that they might still use SkyPath, whilst 39% of these commuters and 35% of these recreational users indicated they would switch to public transport instead of using their own vehicle to get to SkyPath. In relation to possible Southern routes leading to and from SkyPath, whilst large proportions of respondents indicated that they would be travelling through Westhaven, Southern residents indicated a stronger likelihood to pass through Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay areas than respondents from the North. Bus and shuttle use: Asked about their propensity to use new bus services connecting to SkyPath, more than 5% of both commuters recreational users indicated some likelihood of doing so. A similar result was found in relation to the use of regular shuttles from the CBD and Wynyard Quarter. Northern Link pathway: Respondents were asked about their use preferences in relation to an additional Northern Link path connecting SkyPath to Takapuna as an alternative to going through Northcote areas. The question was designed to get an indication of a possible effect on the numbers coming through local areas. Whilst large proportions of respondents felt unsure at this point in time, sizeable proportions are likely to use both the Northern Link pathway as well as local 2 June of 45

5 Northcote streets (31% of commuters and 25% of recreational users). Due to the large proportions that were unsure at this point in time we advise that results to these more hypothetical questions be treated as indicative only. Another scenario was tested which introduced the Northern Link as the only way to access SkyPath from the north. If this were the case, a third of all commuters and just under 4% of recreational users indicated they would be less likely to use SkyPath. Again, large proportions were unsure at this point in time and overall we advise that results to these more hypothetical questions be treated as indicative only. Other products/experiences: Interest in hiring bikes to cross SkyPath is healthy (34% of all respondents expressed interest in doing so). The majority of those who are interested would prefer to have this service available at either entrance to SkyPath. Whilst overall, interest in both additional bridge climbs and bungy jumps seems to be relatively limited, given the niche product nature of the bridge climb and bungy jump there could be a sizeable increase in demand for these add on experiences due to the possible numbers of users coming through. There are also opportunities to market these add on experiences to the younger age groupings in particular. Demand Projections: The purpose of the 214 research was to determine likely use of SkyPath across seasons, days and time periods, as well as access routes as much as possible. Patterns of use as identified by 214 survey respondents have been applied to the projected trip numbers as determined in the 213 research. The 213 projection model developed for SkyPath concluded with a forecast of 112,811 trips by international and domestic visitors in year 1 of operation, with the potential to increase to 222,517 by year 1 and thereafter. Regarding local patronage, the 213 calculations resulted in a forecast of 668,573 trips by Auckland resident recreational and commuter users in year 1 of operation, with the potential to increase to 1,674,157 by year 1. The combined total demand projection for SkyPath is therefore 781,384 trips in year 1 of operation, with the potential to rise to 2,136,513 by 234. Detailed tabulations on the use patterns from 214 data by the main user groupings have been provided in section 4 of this report. As mentioned above, the 214 results show clear high use periods throughout the year, week and day. The respective high use periods are during summer, on weekends, and during late morning to midday. Given the likelihood of the summer season to be the busiest period, there are likely to be 13 weekends a year during which a large number of the trips over SkyPath could occur. The larger numbers of SkyPath users during summer weekends are driven by a relatively large proportion of recreational users who are expected to visit SkyPath during a summer weekend (73%) based on the demand estimates. 2 June of 45

6 2. Background The SkyPath concept was developed by the Auckland Harbour Bridge Pathway Trust (the Trust) to close a critical gap in Auckland s cycling and walking network. During the second half of 213, Angus & Associates was engaged by Auckland Council to provide a review of previous patronage forecasts and other documentation, as well as to conduct additional primary research into potential user groupings. Primary research considered the different aspects of use, as well as the development of a demand projection model estimating potential trips for the first 2 years of operation. The demand projection model was based on conservative assumptions and included total yearly patronage estimates for the main market segments, namely domestic and international visitors to Auckland, as well as Auckland residents. The projection model excluded a number of potential smaller market segments, such as cruise ships and tour groups, as well as specific child visitation (only adults above the age of 15 were included in the survey). Subsequent to this first round of research, Auckland Council and the Trust asked Angus & Associates to refine the total estimates further in order to derive more clarity about specific variations in demand over the course of the year, a typical week and a typical day/time for planning purposes. To this end another round of primary quantitative research was conducted with Auckland residents. This report outlines the findings of this second research project. Please note that since in this report we will often refer to from the earlier research undertaken in 213, for the sake of brevity we will refer to the 213 research and the current 214 research respectively. Building upon the 213 research in relation to potential SkyPath patronage numbers and characteristics, the objectives of the current project were: firstly, to derive further understanding and more certainty surrounding the upper band of patronage estimates during potential peak times and days; and, secondly, to derive an understanding of how many people might come through areas immediately to the north and south of SkyPath and local streets leading to and from SkyPath (i.e. Northcote, Westhaven, Saint Marys Bay). This additional research was also used to address additional topics and issues that were of interest to Council, the Trust and other stakeholders in relation to SkyPath project development. 3. Methodology Primary quantitative research was conducted with a sample of Auckland residents through an online panel survey similar to that employed for the 213 research. The 214 research however excluded the domestic and international visitor markets, since Auckland residents will constitute the largest group of those using SkyPath for both recreational and commuting purposes. 2 June of 45

7 For the online survey we repeated the local resident sample and drew a robust sample of n=8 respondents, comprising n=4 Auckland residents from potential commuter suburbs ( inner areas within a 1km radius of the Harbour Bridge) and n=4 wider Auckland residents ( outer areas) to address both potential recreational AND commuter use. The sample was drawn from New Zealand s largest multisource consumer panel, SmileCity, which provides a representative cross section of the New Zealand population, recruited using a variety of media both on and offline. This approach ensures that the results are directly comparable to previous findings. The 213 research resulted in a set of total patronage estimates to which findings of the 214 research have been applied. This has enabled us to derive estimates of use across seasons, days of the week and times throughout the day. The methodology and corresponding analysis is outlined in section 5 of this report. The research approach recognised four major user groups, potentially making up the bulk of demand for the SkyPath international and domestic visitors to Auckland, as well as Auckland resident recreational users and commuters (As mentioned above there are other potential user groups possibly generating demand for the SkyPath, such as school classes, cruise visitors, social groups etc., which are however outside the scope of the current assessment). The visitors included in this assessment are domestic and international holiday visitors to Auckland, as well as those who come to visit friends and relatives (VFR). The visitor market is further segmented into day and overnight visitors. Auckland residents were assumed to use SkyPath as either (or both) commuters and recreational users, with each group exhibiting specific behaviour and use of SkyPath. The research also included an analysis of inner vs. outer suburbs, examining the potential differences of residents living closer the Harbour Bridge (within a 1km radius) vs. residents from further away within the Auckland region. 4. Survey Findings 4.1. Comparisons with previous (213) research findings Both 213 and 214 surveys measured the level of interest in SkyPath as well as the propensity/likelihood to use/visit SkyPath. The 213 results were used as input to the demand projection model utilising the proportion of the sample who indicated to be Very Likely to use SkyPath for recreation and/or commuting. The current (214) research uses the previous demand estimates in the calculation of use by the different time periods as mentioned above. A comparison of the 213 and 214 results shows very similar levels of interest and use propensity as provided below and any differences are well within the margin of error. This means that the current results are applicable to the numbers forecast with the 213 demand model. 2 June of 45

8 Table 1 Level of interest Very interested Quite interested Not very interested Not interested at all Not sure Recreational use 32% 36% 37% 35% 16% 13% 11% 13% 4% 3% Commuting 17% 18% 17% 19% 27% 18% 32% 38% 6% 6% Table 2 Propensity to use Very likely Quite likely Not very likely Not likely at all Not sure Recreational use 18% 19% 34% 27% 2% 24% 23% 26% 5% 4% Commuting 6% 7% 12% 1% 23% 23% 54% 54% 5% 6% 4.2. Current commuting method Respondents who indicated they would use SkyPath for commuting were asked by which methods they currently commute to and from their place of work or study. Whilst motor vehicles are unsurprisingly the most common form of commuter transport, there are distinct variations in the modes of transport favoured by residents of inner and outer suburbs. Please note that this was a multi choice question to explore popular modes of commuting, hence proportions in figure 1 don t add to 1%. Figure 1 Most Common Methods to Commute by Auckland Region (Grouped) % (Most Common Methods to Commute) % 16% Walk/jog/run 9% Bicycle 7% Auckland Region (Grouped) Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs 65% 59% 41% 23% By bus By car/other motor vehicle 14% 8% 4% 4% 2% 2% By train By ferry Other 9% 13% I don't currenty commute/na Most Common Methods to Commute Base - Commuting User (Group) 4.3. Seasonal use The survey also included a set of questions asking respondents to estimate their use of SkyPath (based on proportions of use totalling to 1%). This set of questions was asked in relation to the seasons, weekly use, time of day, as well as the method/mode of transport to approach SkyPath. 2 June of 45

9 The results suggest that, on average, 4% of commuter and 45% of recreational trips could be undertaken during the summer months, whilst the winter period is expected to represent the low season with a significantly smaller number of trips for both commuting (16%) and recreational purposes (12%). Please note that a trip refers to one trip over SkyPath. A return journey comprises two trips. Figure 2 Expected Average Use of SkyPath by Season 1 9 Seasonal Use All (across) Winter Spring Summer Autumn 2% 21% 1 9 % (Seasonal Use All (across)) % 24% 45% 23% % Commuting Seasonal Use All (down) 12% Recreation 1 Total Responses Base - Average Seasonal Use - All (Measures) 4.4. Weekly use Applying the proportions to a typical week suggests that over 73% of recreational trips could be taken on a weekend. Commuting trips are likely to be spread more evenly across the entire week. Regarding the commuting use we need to emphasise that the survey defined commuting for a variety of purposes such as work, as well as education. It is also important to bear in mind that a great variety of work/job types and professions will be present in the sample of respondents. This means for example that commuters from the hospitality, retail and other service industries are still likely commuting to work on weekends. Figure 3 Expected Average Use of SkyPath Day of the Week Daily Use All (down) Recreation Commuting 4 38% % 35 % (Daily Use All (across)) % 11% 12% 5% 5% 5% 5% 12% 7% 13% 22% 19% Total Responses Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Daily Use All (across) Base - Daily Use - All (Measures) 2 June of 45

10 4.5. Peak times Survey data also indicates that time of use during a typical day could also vary between the different user types. Data suggests that recreational use of SkyPath could be highest from late morning to midday, whilst commuting trips could be spread somewhat more evenly throughout the day, with large proportions expected to use SkyPath during the traditional morning rush hour period. Figure 4 shows trips in both directions. Figure 4 Expected Average Use of SkyPath by Time of Day % (Use by Time All (across)) Early morning before 6am Between 6am and 7am Between 7am and 8am Use by Time All (down) Commuting Recreation 4 35 Between 8am and 9am 28% 29% 15% 16% 12% 12% 8% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% Between 9am and 12 noon 8% 7% 5% Between 3pm and 4pm Between 12 noon and 3pm % 1 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 3% 5 Between 4pm and 5pm Between 5pm and 6pm Between 6pm and 7pm After 7pm until late Total Responses 4.6. SkyPath Approach A Use by Time All (across) Base - Average Use by Time - All (Measures) Respondents were asked which method they might use to approach SkyPath. The purpose of this question was to gain a better understanding of what mode of transport people might use to access SkyPath in an unconstrained (i.e. parking) situation. The following question then gauges what alternative mode of transport might be used by those people who would try to park close, if local car parking was restricted. The way by which potential SkyPath users believe they would get to/approach the Harbour Bridge varies in some respect within the different user groups, as well as by area of residence. On 39% of all recreational trips, users believe they would drive close to the Harbour Bridge and park in local areas, whilst on commuting trips this proportion is just under a quarter. On approximately 77% of all commuting trips and 62% of all recreational trips, survey data indicates that SkyPath would be approached by other means. Inner area residents have indicated that they are also more likely to walk or cycle directly from home to cross SkyPath. 2 June of 45

11 Figure 5 Expected Transport Mode Used to Access SkyPath by User Type (Car Parking Not Restricted) % (Use by Method All (across)) Total Responses Use by Method All (across) 3% 16% 23% 22% Commuting for walk/cycle from home to Skypath drive as close as possible to SkyPath Use by Method All (down) drive to central parking hubs take a bus/train as close as possible 9% 7% 25% 13% 39% 17% Recreation use a ferry close by Base - Average Use by Method - All (Measures) Figure 6 Expected Transport Mode Used to Access SkyPath by Commuting Users (Car Parking Not Restricted) % (Use by Method All (across)) Total Responses Use by Method All (across) 29% 15% 2% 27% Inner Suburbs for walk/cycle from home to Skypath drive as close as possible to SkyPath Auckland Region (Grouped) drive to central parking hubs take a bus/train as close as possible 8% 11% 32% 17% 27% 13% Outer Suburbs use a ferry close by Base - Commuting (Use by Method - All (down)) and Use by Method - All (Measures) Figure 7 Expected Transport Mode Used to Access SkyPath by Recreational Users (Car Parking Not Restricted) % (Use by Method All (across)) Total Responses Use by Method All (across) 24% 1% 37% 24% Inner Suburbs for walk/cycle from home to Skypath drive as close as possible to SkyPath Auckland Region (Grouped) drive to central parking hubs take a bus/train as close as possible 8% 26% 16% 42% 8% Outer Suburbs use a ferry close by Base - Recreation (Use by Method - All (down)) and Use by Method - All (Measures) 2 June of 45

12 4.7. SkyPath Approach B A follow up question was asked of the proportion of respondents who had indicated to drive close and park in local areas about the changes in their behaviour if no local parking was available. The majority of these users indicated that they might still use SkyPath, whilst 39% of these commuters and 35% of these recreational users indicated they would switch to public transport instead of using their own vehicle to get to SkyPath. To summarise in relation to the figures shown in 4.6 SkyPath Approach A, this means that 39% of recreational users believe that they would drive close to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and park in local areas, however 35% of these respondents, upon considering a scenario with restricted local parking, are expected to use public transport instead. Likewise, 23% of commuter users believe that they would drive close to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and park in local areas, however 39% of these are expected to switch to public transport if local parking was unavailable. Figure 8 No Parking Available Alternative Preferred Option Alternative Preferred Option if No Parking Available SkyPath 214 Still drive towards and find closest park Use other transport options e.g. public transport Would not use the SkyPath at all (or would use it less often) Don t know % (No Parking Available Alternative Preferred Option) % 6% 17% 23% 39% 35% 36% 38% Total Responses Recreational User Group Commuting User 4.8. Likely parking areas Those respondents who indicated they would park near SkyPath were presented with a map of local areas and asked where they are likely to park. Results suggest that sizeable proportions would park in the areas surrounding the Southern and Northern landings of SkyPath. Results also show clear preferences by Northern vs. Southern residents. Please note that for this analysis all residents from North Shore City and Rodney in the sample were included as the Northern group, i.e. north of the Harbour Bridge, whilst all other Auckland residents in the sample were classified as the Southern group. 2 June of 45

13 Figure 9 Area Most Likely to Park In by North vs South Residents North vs South Residents Northern Residents Southern Residents % % 1% 1. Takapuna area 75% 21% 2. Northcote Point area 12% 13% 5% 3. Wider Northcote/Birkenhead area 5% 4. Westhaven area 4% 27% 8% 7% 6% 5. Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay area 6. Wynyard Quarter 7. CBD 33% 2% 8. Other 2% Autobase On Commuting Methods Figure 1 Area Most Likely to Park In by North vs South Residents (Commuters) % North vs South Residents Northern Residents Southern Residents 56% 41% 37% 41% 36% 2% 13% 12% 12% 15% 7% 6% 6% 3% 3% 2% 1. Takapuna area 2. Northcote Point area 3. Wider Northcote/Birkenhead area 4. Westhaven area 5. Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay area 6. Wynyard Quarter 7. CBD 8. Other Autobase On Figure 11 Commuting Methods Base - Area Most Likely to Park Vehicle - Commuting (Commuting Methods Axes) Area Most Likely to Park In by North vs South Residents (Recreational Users) North vs South Residents Northern Residents Southern Residents % % 9% 1. Takapuna area 77% 19% 2. Northcote Point area 49% 1% 1% 9% 3% 3. Wider Northcote/Birkenhead area 4. Westhaven area 38% 6. Wynyard Quarter 5. Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay area 25% 5% 6% 7. CBD 31% 1% 8. Other 1% Autobase On Commuting Methods Base - Area Most Likely to Park Vehicle - Recreation (Commuting Methods Axes) 2 June of 45

14 4.9. Likelihood of bus and shuttle use Despite of their mode of transport to SkyPath, when asked about their propensity to use new bus services connecting to SkyPath, more than 5% of all recreational and commuter users indicated some likelihood of doing so. A similar result was found in relation to the use of regular shuttles from the CBD and Wynyard Quarter. Figure 12 Propensity to Use Bus Services Propensity to Use Very likely Quite likely Quite unlikely Very unlikely Don't know % 19% 1 9 % (Propensity to Use) % 13% 17% 17% 39% 34% Total Responses Figure % 17% Recreation Commuting Propensity to Use Axes Propensity to Use Shuttle Services Shuttle Services Very likely Quite likely Quite unlikely Very unlikely Don't know 15% 17% % (Shuttle Services) % 16% 15% 17% 36% 36% Total Responses 14% 14% Recreation Shuttle Services Commuting Shuttle Services Shuttle Services Axes Preference in relation to Northern Link pathway Respondents were asked about their use preferences in relation to an additional Northern Link path connecting SkyPath to Takapuna as an alternative to travelling on local roads through Northcote areas. The question was designed to get an indication of a possible effect on the numbers coming through local areas. Whilst large proportions of respondents felt unsure at this point in time, sizeable proportions are likely to use both the Northern Link pathway 2 June of 45

15 as well as local Northcote streets. Large proportions were unsure at this point in time and overall we advise that results to these more hypothetical questions be treated as indicative only. Figure 14 Northen Link Preference Preference for SkyPath Access with Addition of Northern Link SkyPath 214 Prefer to cycle/walk exclusively along this additional path Prefer to cycle/walk exclusively through Northcote Would probably use both Northern Link and Northcote roads Don t know % 8 % (Northen Link Preference) % 25% 5% 31% 5% 5% % 22% 1 Total Responses Recreation Northen Link Preference Axes Commuting Another scenario was tested which introduced the Northern Link as the only way to access SkyPath from the north. If this were the case, just under 4% of recreational users and a third of commuters indicated they would be less likely to use SkyPath. Again, large proportions were unsure at this point in time and overall we advise that results to these more hypothetical questions be treated as indicative only. Figure 15 Propensity to Use Northern Link Use Northern Link Very likely Quite likely Quite unlikely Very unlikely Don't know % 23% % (Use Northern Link) % 19% 29% 16% 18% 31% Total Responses 9% 11% Recreation Commuting Use Northern Link Axes 1 2 June of 45

16 4.11. Southern routes In relation to possible Southern routes leading to and from SkyPath, whilst large proportions of respondents indicated that they would be travelling through Westhaven, Southern residents indicated a stronger likelihood to pass through Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay areas than respondents from the North. Figure 16 Southern Direction Most Likely to Take by North vs South Residents Southern Direction Through Westhaven towards CBD or other areas Through Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay towards Ponsonby, CBD etc Don t know Neither % % % 7 6 % % 26% % 36% 2 1 Total Responses Northern Residents North vs South Residents Southern Residents Figure Southern Direction Most Likely to Take by North vs South Residents (Commuters) Southern Direction Through Westhaven towards CBD or other areas Through Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay towards Ponsonby, CBD etc Don t know 42% 39% % (Southern Direction) % 44% 28% 33% Total Responses Northern Residents Southern Residents North vs South Residents Base - Southern Direction Most Likely to Take to and From the SkyPath - Commuting (Southern Direction Axes) 2 June of 45

17 Figure Southern Direction Most Likely to Take by North vs South Residents (Recreational Users) Southern Direction Through Westhaven towards CBD or other areas Through Saint Marys Bay/Herne Bay towards Ponsonby, CBD etc Neither Don t know 26% 3% % 8% 7 6 % 5 24% 5 4 8% % 38% 2 1 Total Responses Northern Residents Southern Residents North vs South Residents Base - Southern Direction Most Likely to Take to and From the SkyPath - Recreation (Southern Direction Axes) Cycle/walk combination for recreational users Recreational cycle users were asked about their likelihood of cycling to SkyPath but then walking across it due to the incline of the Harbour Bridge. Again, results to a hypothetical question of this type should be viewed with caution, however on average around 35% of recreational cyclists indicated they were likely to walk SkyPath. Figure 19 % (Propensity to Leave Bicyle at Entrance and Walk SkyPath (Recreation)) Propensity to Leave Bicyle at Entrance and Walk SkyPath (Recreational Cycle Users) Propensity to Leave Bicyle at Entrance and Walk SkyPath (Recreation) Very likely Quite likely Quite unlikely Very unlikely Don't know 1 1 1% 9% Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Auckland Region (Grouped) Total Responses 1 9% 15% % 32% % 5 2% % 23% 2 Base - Recreational User (Group) and I would cycle (SkyPath Recreation Use) 2 June of 45

18 4.13. Interest in bicycle rentals Interest in hiring bikes to cross SkyPath is healthy (34% of all respondents expressed interest in doing so). The majority of those who are interested would prefer to have this service available at the entrance to SkyPath, whilst there are also good opportunities to offer this service from Takapuna, the CBD/Britomart and Wynyard Quarter. Figure 2 Interest in Hiring Bicycle to Cycle the SkyPath Interested in Hiring Bicycle to Cycle the SkyPath Yes No % (Interested in Hiring Bicycle to Cycle the SkyPath) Total Responses 66% 34% Total (Responses) North vs South Residents Figure 21 % (Preferred Location for Hiring Bicycle) Preferred Location for Hiring Bicycle by North vs South Residents North vs South Residents Northern Residents Southern Residents 45% 34% 26% 24% 9% 6% 1% a. City Centre area (i.e. Britomart) b. Wynyard Quarter area on the Waterfront c. Takapuna area on the North Shore 4% Don t know d. Entrance/access areas to the SkyPath close to the Bridge 6% 9% Autobase On Preferred Location for Hiring Bicycle 2 June of 45

19 4.14. Interest in add on experiences Whilst overall, interest in both additional bridge climbs and bungy jumps seems to be relatively limited, given the niche product nature of the bridge climb and bungy jump there could be a sizeable increase in demand for these add on experiences due to the possible numbers of users coming through. There are also opportunities to market these add on experiences to the younger age groupings in particular. Figure Interest in Additional Guided Bridge Climb SkyPath % % 3 % % % 1 5 Total Responses 4% Very interested Quite interested Not very interested Not interested at all Not sure Interest in Additional Guided Trip/Climb 5 Figure % Interest in Additional Guided Bridge Climb by Age Group SkyPath % 1% 9% 7% % % 54% 5% 64% 7 6 % Total Responses 37% 17% 4% 26% 15% 7% 2% 31% 14% years years 4 49 years 5 64 years 65 years+ Age (Small Grouped) 8% 24% 5% June of 45

20 Figure Interest in Additional Bungy Jump off the Bridge 56% % % 19% % 7% 1 5 Very interested Quite interested Not very interested Not interested at all Not sure Interest in Additional Bunjy Jump off the Bridge Figure 25 % (Interest in Additional Bunjy Jump off the Bridge) Total Responses Interest in Additional Bungy Jump off the Bridge by Age Group Interest in Additional Bunjy Jump off the Bridge Very interested Quite interested Not very interested Not interested at all Not sure 5% 35% 24% 26% 1% 1% 1% 45% 23% 17% 6% 64% 14% 22% 1% years years 4 49 years 5 64 years 65 years+ Age (Small Grouped) 6% 65% 6% 93% June of 45

21 5. Application to Demand Projection Model The purpose of the 214 research was to determine likely use of SkyPath across seasons, days and time periods, as well as routes as much as possible. Patterns of use as identified by 214 survey respondents have been applied to the projected trip numbers as determined in the 213 research. The 213 projection model developed for SkyPath concluded with a forecast of 112,811 trips by international and domestic visitors in year 1 of operation, with the potential to increase to 222,517 by year 1 and thereafter. Regarding local patronage, the calculations resulted in a forecast of 668,573 trips by Auckland resident recreational and commuter users in year 1 of operation, with the potential to increase to 1,674,157 by year 1. The combined total demand projection for SkyPath is therefore 781,384 trips in year 1 of operation, with the potential to rise to 2,136,513 by 234. Demand projections were built on conservative measures and assumptions, with significant upside indicated by the survey findings, as well as the fact that some potential user groups were excluded from the 213 projections. The survey results pointed to a very positive reception of SkyPath in terms of expressed interest and in verbatim comment. A detailed outline of the demand projection model, including measures and assumptions can be found in the 213 research report prepared for Auckland Council. The current analysis estimates trip numbers for periods of use, starting with broad seasonal use followed by weekly/daily use and approximate times of use on a given day. Given the complexity of the data, this report presents the resulting estimates of trip numbers for two key years only, these being year 1 and year Recreational & Commuter Patronage Proportions Table 3 overleaf summarises the proportional use/patronage of SkyPath from 214 survey data by the recreational and commuting user groups by season, weekday, time of day, as well as mode of approach. The results show clear peaks and troughs. Summer represents the peak season, with 45% of recreational trips and 4% of commuter trips likely to be undertaken, whilst the winter months could generate 12% of recreational trips and 16% of commuter trips. As seen in section 3 of this report, a large proportion of trips will be undertaken during weekends, as well as during late morning and midday. 2 June of 45

22 Table 3 Resident Use Proportions Recreational Use: Commuter Use: Use proportion: Use proportion: Per Annum: 1% 1% Winter Quarter 12% 16% Spring Quarter 23% 24% Summer Quarter 45% 4% Autumn Quarter 21% 2% Weekday: Use proportion: Use proportion: Monday 5% 11% Tuesday 5% 11% Wednesday 5% 12% Thursday 5% 12% Friday 7% 13% Saturday 38% 22% Sunday 35% 19% Trips by time: Use proportion: Use proportion: Before 6am 3% 4% 6am 7am 4% 8% 7am 8am 4% 15% 8am 9am 3% 12% 9am 1pm* 9% 5% 1am 11pm* 9% 5% 11am 12pm* 9% 5% 12pm 1pm* 1% 4% 1pm 2pm* 1% 4% 2pm 3pm* 1% 4% 3pm 4pm 8% 5% 4pm 5pm 6% 7% 5pm 6pm 6% 1% 6pm 7pm 3% 6% After 7pm 6% 6% Approach: Use proportion: Use proportion: Walk/Cycle 17% 22% Park near 39% 23% Central parking hubs 13% 16% Bus/Train 25% 3% Ferry 7% 9% *Please note that the survey question provided 3 hour time slots from 9am to 12am and 12pm to 3pm. For illustrative purposes these have been split evenly across the respective hours. 2 June of 45

23 5.2. Domestic & International Visitor Patronage The 214 research excluded new primary research into the (domestic and international) visitor markets. The 213 research found that the majority of users would come from the Auckland population and it was considered that informed assumptions could be made in relation to approximate seasonal variations in trips made by visitors to the region. Of the official New Zealand tourism datasets, the Commercial Accommodation Monitor (CAM) produced by Statistics New Zealand currently provides the best regional estimates of seasonality in the domestic and international markets. Even though the CAM measures only guest nights spent in commercial accommodation establishments (of a certain size and excluding smaller establishments and private accommodation), it still provides an indication of variations in tourism activity throughout the year. The seasonal peaks and troughs in Auckland s visitor markets can be seen in the following chart: Figure 26 COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATION MONITOR, AUCKLAND RTO, BY VISITOR ORIGIN 5,, 4,5, 4,, 3,5, GUEST NIGHTS 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, 1,, 5, YEAR ENDING DOMESTIC GUEST NIGHTS INTERNATIONAL GUEST NIGHTS TOTAL GUEST NIGHTS 2 June of 45

24 Calculating the likely seasonality of use of SkyPath based on CAM data for the latest full year (213), results in the following assumptions: Table 4: Seasonal Use of SkyPath by Domestic and International Visitors (Modelled Using CAM data) Domestic Seasonality International Seasonality Total Seasonality Winter Quarter 21% 17% 19% Spring Quarter 24% 23% 23% Summer Quarter 32% 35% 33% Autumn Quarter 24% 25% 25% Application of these proportions to the visitor generated trips projected in the 213 SkyPath research shows the following seasonal visitor estimates for years 1 and year 5 respectively. Please note that the numbers shown are for trip numbers (including return trips) which are derived from 213 survey findings (55% of international visitors would do a return trip and 29% of domestic visitors would do a return trip). Table 5: Visitor Trips Modelled at Year 1 and 5 Year 1 Domestic International Total Per Annum 34, , ,898 Winter 7,84 22,861 29,945 Spring 8,158 3,49 38,27 Summer 1,928 46,643 57,571 Autumn 8,356 33,819 42,175 Year 5 Per Annum 21, , ,163 Winter 4,431 38,836 43,267 Spring 5,12 51,47 56,149 Summer 6,835 79,236 86,71 Autumn 5,226 57,451 62,677 Dividing the number of trips by days per season (91.25 days) results in the following daily numbers per season: Table 6 Daily Numbers by Season Visitors Year 1 Domestic International Total Per Day Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 5 Domestic International Total Per Day Winter Spring Summer Autumn June of 45

25 Applying a further assumption that visitor patronage of SkyPath will vary by weekday and/or weekend resulted in the following Table 7. Implicit in the proportions provided is the assumption that domestic visitors could exhibit the same or similar patterns of use than the local recreational user, whilst a lack of more specific potential use patterns of international visitors caused us to spread these trips evenly across an average week. Table 7 Weekday Proportions Visitors Domestic International Weekday: Monday 5% 14% Tuesday 5% 14% Wednesday 5% 14% Thursday 5% 14% Friday 7% 14% Saturday 38% 14% Sunday 35% 14% Table 8 and Table 9 show the applied visitor trips per week by season for year 1 and year 5 respectively. Table 1 shows the sum total for both visitor groupings. Table 8 Weekly Numbers by Season Visitors Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 1 Domestic Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Year 1 International Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Per Season: 7,84 8,158 1,928 8,356 Per Season: 22,861 3,49 46,643 33,819 Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: 1,759 2,311 3,588 2,61 Weekday: Weekday: Monday Monday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Thursday Friday Friday Saturday Saturday Sunday Sunday June of 45

26 Table 9 Weekly Numbers by Season Visitors Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 5 Domestic Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Year 5 International Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Per Season: 4,431 5,12 6,835 5,226 Per Season: 38,836 51,47 79,236 57,451 Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: 2,987 3,927 6,95 4,419 Weekday: Weekday: Monday Monday Tuesday Tuesday Wednesday Wednesday Thursday Thursday Friday Friday Saturday Saturday Sunday Sunday June of 45

27 Table 1 Combined Visitor Numbers Visitors Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 1 Total Combined Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Per Season: 29,945 38,27 57,571 42,175 Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: 2,33 2,939 4,429 3,244 Weekday: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 5 Total Combined Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Per Season: 43,267 56,149 86,71 62,677 Weekly visitor numbers during the 13 weeks of the season: 3,328 4,319 6,621 4,821 Weekday: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday , Sunday , Combined Trip Numbers Commuters, Recreational Users & Visitors The analysis in the following tables applies the specific use proportions found in the 214 research to the patronage demand projection model developed in 213. The resulting trip numbers are presented per annum to show periods of peak and off peak usage throughout the year, week and day. Tables 13 to 16 provide an example of how patronage throughout the week and day could look across the seasons, although the numbers should be viewed as indicative only. Please note that these estimates are calculated based on trip numbers. Demand was calculated by trip numbers, taking into account two trips/a return trip over SkyPath per visit in many cases. Amongst other effects, this means for 2 June of 45

28 example that there will be a certain proportion of users who will park near SkyPath and then complete a return trip, in effect reducing the total estimated traffic to and from the Harbour Bridge. Table 11 Total trips per user segment year 1 Recreational Use: Use Year 1 proportion: Trips: Commuter Use: Use proportion: Trips: Total Resident Trips: Total Including Visitor Trips: Per Annum: 1% 534,227 1% 134, , ,471 Winter Quarter 12% 64,17 16% 21,495 85,63 115,548 Spring Quarter 23% 122,872 24% 32, , ,322 Summer Quarter 45% 24,42 4% 53, , ,712 Autumn Quarter 21% 112,188 2% 26, ,57 181,231 Weekday: Use proportion: Trips: Use proportion: Trips: Monday 5% 26,711 11% 14,778 41,489 62,269 Tuesday 5% 26,711 11% 14,778 41,489 62,269 Wednesday 5% 26,711 12% 16,122 42,833 63,612 Thursday 5% 26,711 12% 16,122 42,833 63,612 Friday 7% 37,396 13% 17,465 54,861 76,331 Saturday 38% 23,6 22% 29, , ,735 Sunday 35% 186,979 19% 25, ,55 243,642 2 June of 45

29 Table 12 Total trips per user segment year 5 Recreational Use: Use Year 5 proportion: Trips: Commuter Use: Use proportion: Trips: Total Resident Trips: Total Including Visitor Trips: Per Annum: 1% 872,4 1% 265,34 1,137,344 1,385,57 Winter Quarter 12% 14,64 16% 42, ,95 19,361 Spring Quarter 23% 2,561 24% 63, ,243 32,391 Summer Quarter 45% 392,42 4% 16, , ,69 Autumn Quarter 21% 183,121 2% 53,68 236, ,865 Weekday: Use proportion: Trips: Use proportion: Trips: Monday 5% 43,6 11% 29,187 72,788 16,234 Tuesday 5% 43,6 11% 29,187 72,788 16,234 Wednesday 5% 43,6 12% 31,841 75,441 18,888 Thursday 5% 43,6 12% 31,841 75,441 18,888 Friday 7% 61,4 13% 34,494 95, ,413 Saturday 38% 331,362 22% 58, ,736 43,39 Sunday 35% 35,21 19% 5, , ,541 2 June of 45

30 Table 13 Trips per user segment per week in year 1 Recreation Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Commuter Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Visitor Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn TOTAL TRIPS Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 1 Totals Totals Totals Totals Year 1 Totals Totals Totals Totals Year 1 Totals Totals Totals Totals Year 1 Totals Totals Totals Totals Per Per Per Per 64,17 122,872 24,42 112,188 21,495 32,243 53,738 26,869 29,945 38,27 57,571 42, , , , ,231 Season Season Season Season No. of weekly trips during season 4,931 9,452 18,492 8,63 No. of weekly trips during season 1,653 2,48 4,134 2,67 No. of weekly trips during season 2,33 2,939 4,429 3,244 No. of weekly trips during season 8,888 14,871 27,55 13,941 Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Mon Mon Mon Mon 77 1,17 1,934 1,63 Tues Tues Tues Tues 77 1,17 1,934 1,63 Weds Weds Weds Weds 723 1,132 1,975 1,83 Thurs Thurs Thurs Thurs 723 1,132 1,975 1,83 Fri , Fri Fri Fri 85 1,358 2,43 1,289 Sat 1,874 3,592 7,27 3,279 Sat Sat Sat 2,696 4,76 8,769 4,35 Sun 1,726 3,38 6,472 3,2 Sun Sun Sun 2,482 4,329 8,65 4,1 2 June of 45

31 Table 14 Trips per user segment per time slot per week in year 1 (including per hour during midday) Recreational Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Commuter Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 1 Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Year 1 Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Trips by time: Trips by time: Before 6am Before 6am am 7am am 7am am 8am am 8am am 9am am 9am am 12pm 1,381 2,646 5,178 2,416 9am 12pm pm 3pm 1,43 2,741 5,363 2,53 12pm 3pm pm 4pm , pm 4pm pm 5pm , pm 5pm pm 6pm , pm 6pm pm 7pm pm 7pm After 7pm , After 7pm Recreational Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Commuter Trips Winter Spring Summer Autumn Year 1 Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Year 1 Totals: Totals: Totals: Totals: Trips by time: Trips by time: Before 6am Before 6am am 7am am 7am am 8am am 8am am 9am am 9am am 1am , am 1am am 11am , am 11am am 12pm , am 12pm pm 1pm , pm 1pm pm 2pm , pm 2pm pm 3pm , pm 3pm pm 4pm , pm 4pm pm 5pm , pm 5pm pm 6pm , pm 6pm pm 7pm pm 7pm After 7pm , After 7pm June of 45