One of the biggest flaws with buses in Auckland at the moment is that they are generally so incredibly slow. There are probably just a few routes around Auckland where catching the bus is faster than driving – such as the Northern Busway and perhaps some arterials with bus lanes like Dominion Road and Onewa Road. A big reason for why buses are so slow is that they spend a huge amount of their time not moving – largely due to incredibly slow boarding times.
Of course Auckland is not alone with this problem, and this youtube video of San Francisco shows their problems with slow public transport, and the steps being taken to speed things up.
I think one of the biggest benefits of Auckland’s integrated ticketing system, once it eventually happens, will be the faster boarding times that the non-contact RFID smart-cards will allow. I certainly hope that consideration is given to allowing people to board buses from the rear doors – particularly during busy peak hour periods.
As well as speeding up buses, quicker boarding times will also allow buses to be more reliable. Because boarding times are so slow, if one particular bus ends up having to pick up a lot of people it will lose ground to its timetable. Then, inevitably, the bus behind it will start to catch it – with that process added to by the fact that it doesn’t have to pick up those passengers. This is what leads to buses “bunching”, particularly on the Link Bus route here in Auckland.
The other essential element of improving our bus system is to build more bus lanes. Particularly on the Link Bus route!
Processing...
Auckland is atrocious in this regards. In comparison places like Germany may have a hundred or more pepople boarding a bus or train at one stop in a matter of seconds due to all the doors being open and because people don’t have to swipe on/off. Unless Auckland adopts a similar system we’ll never reach the what is merely the norm in Europe. However, allowing simulataneous front and rear door entry will be important, but I’m doubting bus companies will allow this claiming it will lead to people riding without paying.
I have sometimes had to wait 10 minutes for a bus to board in central Auckland. We should move to a proof of payment system like the rest of the world. The ironic thing is that there are periodic inspections of tickets on buses, so it’s not like it wouldn’t take a lot to implement this system. It is highly likely that bus companies will claim that it will lead to an increase in fare jumping, however a faster boarding system will mean more patrons and more profit. At the end of the day a little trust is all that is needed.
I agree that any rise in fare evasion is likely to be offset by other improvements to the efficiency and popularity of the system.
We should have a transit “police” like Australian and American cities have…
I don’t think we should rely on integrated ticketing solely, these other improvements are a good idea…
Yeah while Snapper has sped up boarding times on buses in Wellington, the fact that you need to “tag off” probably adds to alighting times, losing some of the gain. Not sure how we’re going to get around that in Auckland.
Flat fare…
Yeah but how do you do that without making short trips hugely more expensive, or alternatively enormously reducing your farebox recovery?
Would it be possible to have the card reader at the bus-stop as well as on the bus? Then people could pile off the bus and tag-off outside without holding the bus up.
When walking to Britomart to catch the train home I often see NEX services loading up outside Dicksmith. There is usually a line and I have noticed that they have a guy with a portable ticket machine at the back door to speed up loading but oddly there is often no queue at the front door so all the benefits of using both doors are lost.
Even train times could be improved by better operation of the doors and ticket collecting, far to often the TM is held up and is delayed in opening the door. The doors also seem to take quite a while to close. All of this time may be small on its own but it quickly adds up, train services could potentially be sped up by a couple of mins a journey with tighter stopping times.
As for the price issue I would question what patronage would be if fares were half what they are now? Also could tag on/off devices be installed on the bus shelter itself? that way people could tag on/off when they get to the stop and just jump on/off the bus when it pulls up (the system should also be setup to encourage tagging off by charging the max fare if you don’t). In terms of fare evading that could be easily solved by enforcement officers doing random checks (when it comes in we will have some train POs looking for a job)
Edit: David we must have had the same thought at the same time 🙂
well ARTA has not released anything about integrated ticketing, i did remember seeing an AD for the position in herald. doesn’t looks like they have found someone. it makes me wonder whether arta is trying to not make a decision and push it to Auckland transport. all our arguments/suggestions will fall on deaf ears as the decision will be made closed doors. we will not know anything about fares/zones etc.
getting the system and equipment is one thing but fare structure is far too complicated. it is going to affect loading, auditing tickets, transfers, discounted tickets etc.
My 10-year experiecne with bus rides in the CBD is that they spend 1/3 of the time waiting at bus stops, 1/3 of the time waiting at red lights (always missing the “green wave” due to the bus stop delays) and only moving 1/3 of the time. It makes walking in the CBD a viable option (as acknowledged by the Maxx transport planner) to taking public transport.
Oh certainly at peak hour it is much faster to walk up Queen Street from Customs Street to Wellesley Street than to take the bus
Whatever has happened to integrated ticketing? Have you seen any answers to written questions lately about the progress being made on that project?
What would be the effect of a fare/ticket free system? Forget about charging on urban routes and go fare-free within the Auckland City…
Benefits include:
– shorter boarding/alighting times;
– tighter travelling times;
– less/no ticketing infrastructure to maintain;
– no need to costly integrated ticketing development and maintenance/compliance;
– no inspectors;
– simplify the jobs of drivers, station staff;
– simplify the experience of users, parents, children;
– make the PT system totally accessible to visitors, tourists, new migrants;
– PT options become the primarily considered ones for trip planning (vs car only).
If enough additional people started using PT services, could/would the savings in other areas of city expenditure exceed the lost income…?
Chris N, I think that roughly $100-130 million of fares are collected each year in the Auckland region. So that’s the amount of money you would need to be looking at replacing somehow. If you went fare free you would probably end up with a tonne more people at peak time wanting to use public transport, and therefore you would need a pile more buses and trains – but unfortunately any money you might have to spend on acquiring the extra vehicles/infrastructure you’ve just spent on making public transport free. Doh!
I think a better approach would be to vary your fares according to the time of day. Have peak time fares and off-peak fares – so that you can “spread the load” on your system and therefore use your infrastructure more efficiently and effectively. But once again, this probably somehow needs to be cost-neutral (lower off-peak fares compensated for by raising peak time fares or by hoping that the extra patronage makes up the difference.)
In the end, cost doesn’t seem to be the major reason why people don’t use public transport. Convenience, speed and reliability seem to be things that are more likely to put people off PT, and to be honest I would rather we spent that $100-130 million a year on improving the system rather than making it free.
Fair enough to the comments on the costs-vs-benefits of free-vs-fared PT funding. I am vaguely aware of a lobby group’s ambitions to get this fare-free idea put to the public during the upcoming local body elections (heard it on national radio).
I guess also while we already have the ethos of user-pays embedded within the public, we may as well maintain the accepted practices. However all the issues raised in this forum about integrated ticketing/waiting times/compliance costs ($ & time) do need to be sorted out otherwise they will remain a barrier to greater use of PT.
Another idea I heard was to make say morning peak time (0700~0830?) free, but the rest of the time normal or full fares apply. This could speed loading times in the morning quite a lot – where the time pressure is greatest and the peak the most intense. In the afternoon, those who used PT in the morning are unlikely to return home via other means just to avoid a full fare (“Hi honey, would you [drive 20kms in peak afternoon traffic to] pick me up from work [so I don’t have to pay my $x fare] please…” – I don’t think so.) This may cause a minor drop in income on a per passenger/round-trip basis, but could lead to benefits in time management and increased ridership overall. (I just thought: some may bus in and walk back – a community health benefit! 😉
That is the RAM party platform and it isn’t really practical in terms of infrastructure needed and funds available…
I think a CBD free zone is possible, check out the Transwa website for some info about Perth’s PT free zone…
On flat fares, I think lower fares collected and a lower farebox recovery ratio is a good trade off… It is the fare system in NY and works well… Having higher prices for short trips can be made up in part by having free transfers after the initial purchase of the tivket like NY does… We’d obviously need a more pro-PT government…
“the fact that you need to “tag off” probably adds to alighting times, losing some of the gain”
GWRC’s Central Area Bus Operational Review suggests that this is not the case:
“Based on the available data, ‘tagging off’ does not appear to impact on the bus dwell time”
Reference
3.5.1 Impact on Dwell Time, p43-44. Central Area Bus Operational Review
URL: http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Public-transport/Docs/Bus-Operational-Review-Final-for-GWRC2.pdf
That’s certainly good to hear Kegan. I guess if you’re smart you tag off as your bus is pulling into its stop.
I don’t think free is a good idea, obviously it costs a bucket load but also I don’t think people appricate the value of it as much. If the price is minimal (like a couple of $) then people are much more likely to respect the service but also to see value in it. Also if it was free I don’t think the system could cope with the influx of people wanting to use it which would turn people off it, we really need to get the core network (RTN’s and QTN’s) in place first and working well.
Any CBD free zone would need to be free only to people already using public transport somehow. Otherwise international experience show that you only end up causing more car driving and subsidising parking operators. While it sounds counter intuitive, what happens is people realise they can drive in and park on the fringes of the CBD relatively cheaply and catch free transport to their final destination, parking companies respond by building a ring of cheap low rise parking buildings on the edge of the free zone. The end result, more people can drive and park easily and the taxpayer effectively subsidised the profitability of car parking companies.
On total free fares, I think it may be a good idea for very mature systems but I have three main objections to the idea for Auckland:
1) The council would have to come up with an extra $150 million a year (or whatever the farebox take is) just to maintain the same level of service, let along have funds to improve the system. This would have to come straight out of rates as the council would have no other suitable funding source.
2) The cost of public transport is something of a barrier for some people, but it certainly isn’t the number one reason people don’t use it. In comparison to other transport options most PT is quite cheap overall. Any funding should naturally address the main problems first (things like improving frequencies and actually being able to take people where they want to go in a reasonable time).
3) Having no price would create unrestricted consumption of public transport. One question to ask is do we really want to just get as many people onto PT as possible, or is the real goal to meet peoples travel needs most appropriately. One school of thought suggests the first step should be to eliminate travel where possible, not to encourage it. One side effect could be that people start taking a lot more individual trips than they need to, which has implications for resource and energy use. Also related to this are similar problems of having no barrier at all to public transport access, the most common one is that vagrants and other non-travellers start using buses and trains as a place to shelter, live, beg, urinate etc.