Planned weekend bus routes to Motueka and Wakefield could be on the chopping block as Tasman District Council seeks to reduce its costs.
On Tuesday, the council held a workshop for elected members to explore cost-saving for transport while it prepared its draft 2027–2037 Long-Term Plan.
One of four suggestions, or “thought exercises”, put forward was to not continue with planned expansions of eBus services.
The current eBus contract and council budgets envision adding weekend services to the Motueka and Wakefield routes, and increasing the service’s frequency during peak hours from every 30 minutes to every 15.
Two-year-old consultation results on the council’s 2024–2034 Long-Term Plan saw more than half of respondents – 397 out of 763 – support weekend services to the outlying towns.
Another 139 supported introducing more frequent peak hour services in addition to implementing the weekend services, while 153 preferred keeping the timetable as it was.
The council subsequently earmarked $30.8 million for public transport, including the weekend services, in its 2024–34 plan, with the New Zealand Transport Agency continuing to fund half of the service.
But despite the budget being allocated two years ago, the eBus changes are still not guaranteed.
“We’re working on the basis [for 2027–37] that there will be no expansion,” transportation manager Jamie McPherson told elected members.
“So, there won’t be weekend services to Motueka, and there won’t be increased frequency on Routes 1 and 2.”
Jamie sought guidance from councillors on whether that was the right approach, or if the draft plan for the next decade should keep the funding.
The ongoing net cost to the council of those changes, once they were both implemented in 2029, was expected to be about $450,000 per year.
Councillors were of various minds on the issue.
Kerryn Ferneyhough said weekend services would increase community connectedness and that service expansion would capitalise on March’s “record high” patronage that was driven by the fuel crisis, whose end was uncertain.
“I don’t see how we could do anything other than encourage stronger use and availability of public transportation.”
Timo Neubauer said more frequent bus services would encourage greater patronage and highlighted the district’s planned growth and intensification, which would put additional strain on urban road networks.
“How is that going to work if we don’t invest in our public transport system?”
“Bottom line for me is that I don’t want to see congestion increase because of our development,” agreed Celia Butler.
She added that she wanted to see the outcome of the ongoing eBus review that has been rolled into the wider review of the Regional Land Transport Plan for 2027–37.
Jo Ellis said the expansion cost was “tricky to justify” and would similarly welcome the review’s data.
“If the evidence shows that an expansion is what’s necessary, then we need to allow for it.”
Kit Maling agreed: “I don’t think you can make the decision without the data.”
Mark Greening said seeing data would be useful, but thought the council should implement bus lanes, to make the eBus “more compelling” to use, before expanding the service.
Revenue gained through increased patronage of the service could then fund its expansion, he suggested.
Dean McNamara pushed back against service expansion, raising concerns about the heavy buses damaging the road and the level of subsidisation of the service, saying he wanted the service to be user-pays.
“Until it gets to that point, constantly expanding it is not something I’m fond of.”
Jamie said the council would likely consult the public on changes to the eBus service.
Three other transport cost-saving options put forward were increasing drainage work by about a third to prevent more costly repairs, implementing more paid parking beyond current plans affecting three Richmond car parks, and retiring low-use bridges at the end of their lives.
Elected members were broadly in favour of increasing the drainage works, largely opposed to expanding paid parking, and preferred to continue maintaining low-use bridges, with exploration of cost reductions or divestment on a case-by-case basis.
