Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Attention Margaret Meek

I've had a few responses from GWRC in regards to policies that GWRC/Metlink have in regards to dealing with "red light running". In your recent response (https://fyi.org.nz/request/9461-informat...) and previously (https://fyi.org.nz/request/9247-informat...) you mention that the bus operators have their own policies, and that you (GWRC) "do not hold" this information. Taking aside s 2(6) of the LGOIMA, I'm a bit concerned that GWRC seem to not have any oversight into how the operators deal with red light runners. I still also find it very unusual that you have clear oversight on instances dealing with trains, but no oversight when it comes to buses which are likely to have more occurrences dealing with at risk road users (such as cyclists, pedestrians, etc) due to the more frequent, and public sharing nature of their transit.

Having read through your Partnering Contracts with the bus operators (https://www.metlink.org.nz/assets/Upload...), section 14.1 requires the operator to perform in accordance with the law (14.1.1) (pages 35-36 of that document). Noting the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, section 3.2 (5), and the footage supplied to GWRC, and confirmed by GWRC in person when I met with you last month. Everyone at that meeting agreed that some buses had indeed broken the law as it stands in that Act, and there may also be concerns about the Health and Safety at Work Act. These breaches of the Law's defined by these Acts's seem to be in breach of the Partnering Contract.

Looking at page 109 of that document, clause 54.1.2 (d), and 54.1.3 (a), I see that there is the ability to terminate the Partnering Agreement based on a "serious risk to the health and safety of persons or property". This term has been used in various correspondence with myself and Metlink/GWRC, noting that Metlink acknowledge that the act of running a red light is a serious risk. I would hope that GWRC think very carefully about whether this termination should be performed.

In addition, viewing Schedule 4 of the Partnering Agreement (https://www.metlink.org.nz/assets/Upload...), section 2.1 (page 63-64 of that document), clearly lists the Land Transport (Road User) Rule, and the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Given GWRC's responses that my complaints in particular are not being dealt with on an individual case (noted in OIA 2018-379), and that GWRC "do not hold" the procedures relating to red light running (noted in both OIA 2018-379, and in OIA 2019-019), how is it that GWRC can be assured that the bus operators will attempt to cease breaching the Partnering Contract, and breaching the law. I note this as I have continued to see these breaches, and it has appeared that Metlink are not actually doing anything substantial to improve the occurrence of these breaches (as per OIA 2018-402 (https://fyi.org.nz/request/9309-informat...) and OIA 2018-379).

So, can GWRC please outline how they get assurances that any breach of the Partnering Agreement section 14.1, and section 2.1 of Schedule 4, is dealt with in a satisfactory manner, and that any further breaches will be kept to a minimum (ideally no breaches). Note that this is in respect of you "not holding" any details of the operators procedures, and appear to not have done anything towards the "Red light campaign" that was suggested in response to my complaints.
In addition, at what point would GWRC actually terminate the contract based on these breaches, as laid out in clause 54.1.2 (d), and 54.1.3 (a) of the Partnering Agreement?

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Seeming as you are delaying this reponse for 2 months. I would like to add the following addition to the request. I would hope that you take this on board as well as responding to the request...

Is GWRC, or have they ever, discussed terminating the contract with any bus operator due to performance issues, under clause 56.1.2 of the partnering contract (https://www.metlink.org.nz/assets/Upload..., page 116 of PDF. This clause is included below.

If there are such discussions, I would like a copy of all correspondence of those discussions, and any verbal discussions also provided.

If GWRC have not debated terminating the contract, I would like to request any information as to why GWRC are failing to uphold the Partnering Agreement.

The clause:

56.1.2 (Performance) The number of Scheduled Services during any period
of three consecutive Relevant Months in respect of which the Operator
incurs Performance Deductions due to a failure to meet:
(a) any of the requirements of the Reliability KPI exceeds 5% of the
Scheduled Services which the Operator was required by this
Partnering Contract to provide in that period; or
(b) any of the requirements of the Punctuality KPI exceeds 15% of
Scheduled Services which the Operator was required by this
Partnering Contract to provide in that period;

Given the recent article showing NZ Bus accruing fines for 12% of their services for performance issues, which is above 5% as stated in 56.1.2(a) of the Partnering Agreement. I would imagine that GWRC should have terminated that contract roughly 3 months ago in January 2019, given 3 consecutive months of failing to meet KPI's.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

And incase you are confused about whether it is Reliability KPI or Performance KPI. You mentioned a total of 11.7% at https://fyi.org.nz/request/9521-informat.... That was for 17,663 instances. From that we can gather the total number of services are 150,900. 5% of that is 7,545.

From the stuff article, 3207 were cancelled, and 6005 were using too small a bus for the service. Cancelled buses don't meet any of 5.3 of Schedule 6 (https://www.metlink.org.nz/assets/Upload..., pages 186-187 of pdf, pages 7-8 of schedule). Too small buses don't meet 5.3.4. The other number quoted in the stuff article (8451 late services) can't be determined whether it is a Reliability or Performance KPI.

So, cancelled and too small both fit criteria for "Reliability", and equate to 6.1%. Above 5%. For 5 months. When was GWRC going to admit to the public that they had operators in breach of the contract and were refusing to take action?

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

This request can withdrawn. I had a meeting with Greg Pollock today, which has led me to believe that Metlink is acting upon reducing the occurrences.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport