One particularly interesting element of the NZTA Research Report into creating better public transport networks that has been the focus of a few posts recently is the comparison made between Auckland and Vancouver. While Vancouver is a larger city than Auckland, with a population of over 2 million, as the graph below shows there are a number of similarities in terms of its urban density and the strength of its CBD (in terms of its regional share of employment) that would show it to be a good test case for looking at what Auckland ‘could’ be.
On the two “urban form” measures, it could well be argued that Auckland is more suitable for public transport than Vancouver – as it has higher densities and a stronger urban core. But if we look at the statistics we find that Vancouver hugely outperforms Auckland on all measures. Public transport modeshare for commuting trips is 16.5% against Auckland’s 7%, while boarding per capita per year are over three times as high in Vancouver as they are in Auckland – indicating that public transport is much more popular for off-peak travel there than it is here.
So what’s the difference here? Well for a start Vancouver avoided building masses of motorways, and in particular didn’t build any motorways within close proximity to its CBD. That is clearly shown in the map below:
What the map above also shows is that Vancouver’s rail system (the red lines) is not particularly extensive either. So it’s not as though they have managed to achieve such results through massive investment in a world-class 20-line subway system. The “West Coast Express” commuter train is actually somewhat irrelevant in the above map, as it only does a few runs each day and is used by even fewer people than Auckland’s rail lines – which means that until recently Vancouver only really had one and a half railway lines serving the whole city. Even now, while the SkyTrain is extremely popular, the vast majority of public transport users in Vancouver ride the bus.
So how on earth has Vancouver got such excellent public transport statistics out of what seems to be such little investment in expensive infrastructure like underground railway lines? And how come it seems to emerge near the top of every “quality of life” survey when logic tells us it should be choking in traffic congestion due to there being so few major transport corridors – roads or rail? The answer is in its superbly organised public transport system as a whole, but particularly in the structure of its bus system. Here’s a map showing the bus routes throughout a fairly central part of Vancouver:
This is an almost perfect example of the network effect that I have talked about so much recently. The bus routes form a grid, enabling “anywhere to anywhere” travel throughout this part of the city, while express high-frequency “B-Line” services (sound familiar?) supplement the base network to provide access along particularly high patronage corridors.
Here’s what the NZTA research paper has to say about the comparison between the two cities:
Vancouver outperformed Auckland in public transport’s share of work trips, and by an even greater margin when per-capita trip-making was analysed. Interestingly, Vancouver’s much larger patronage was carried on a network that consisted of fewer bus and rail lines (routes) than were provided in Auckland (see figure 3.2). Vancouver had a relatively ‘sparse’ network made up of heavily trafficked lines; Auckland had a very dense and complex network consisting of many, mainly low-volume, lines. For example, Vancouver’s #98 B-Line express bus route carried more than 20,000 passengers a day, while Auckland’s ‘Northern Express’ busway service carried about the same number per week (2004 figures, from Translink 2005). Vancouver’s busiest B-Line service was route #99B, an inner-city crosssuburban route serving the University of British Columbia, with 31,000 passengers per day.
It gives us a hint of what the benefits of applying a network based system in Auckland might be. Clearly low urban densities and a weak CBD are not a barrier to far higher public transport statistics, and does not mean you have to build motorways like crazy for your city to work. Vancouver has done it, why not Auckland?
Processing...
Looks like a great city he can learn alot from, I cannot wait to go and try out the PT for myself, visit the awesome aquarium and see a Canucks game…
Ticketing has a part to play in the success of Vancouver’s network. I used to live there. I didn’t have a car, but I did live near bus routes. There were two kinds of tickets I bought. Firstly, a monthly pass, which was relatively cheap to my income – it didn’t kill me to buy one, and presumably many others.
Secondly, if I didn’t have a monthly pass, the tickets bought on the system were valid for two hours in *any* direction and *any* mode of transport (bus, ferry or skytrain). That meant you could go do your grocery shopping easily, or go meet a friend for coffee, or whatever.
Thirdly, boarding was relatively painless. The drivers weren’t cashiers as well as drivers. They drove. But you either showed your monthly pass (a different colour/design for each month), or you dropped your fare in the fare box – this was designed so that the driver could see the money being dropped and would know that you only dropped in two quarters and not three as needed – and the driver gave you a ticket in return. Should you drop more than the fare required, tough luck cause the driver didn’t have a change box.
It should be noted that all of the above was underpinned by the province. They owned the PT system, so they subsidised it to a degree. But there was no weird blatherings by wingnut politicans about free markets and such like – it was simply accepted that the greater public good generated by the system (as shown in the table above, 134 boardings/capita in 2009, probably less in 1990) deserved to be supported by the state. That argument was simply accepted by everyone.
So, yes, Vancouver is an interesting case study. It certainly formed a large part of my knowledge that PT can be a successful system. To the extent that I could in addition to my daily chores and use of the system, go to Grouse Mountain by PT (the buses were equipped with ski racks in the winter), and to Victoria, on Vancouver Island by PT.
This is an interesting comparison and I suspect all that has been mentioned as to why Vancouver has a higher PT use is correct. The other factor though that comes to mind is that although Van’ has a slightly lower average population density than AKLD, it does vary more in that it has areas of much higher density contrasted by more outlying areas of lower density, whereas AKLD has a fairly homogeneous spread of density – the worst kind, although we are addressing this and things are on the improve. That said the lack of density in Auckland is no excuse for more PT initiatives. Through my work I see a lot of how PT = a more vibrant city. This is another thing that I am not convinced the politicians/decision makers always seem to understand. Its a bit like the hidden subsidies of car parking. On the one hand we are introducing shared space, street upgrades, widened footpaths artwork etc – all good in the hope introducing the pedestrian vitality that AKLD badly needs, yet on the other hand we continue to build multilevel car park buildings (over PT interchanges, in the CBD and on our so called prized waterfront) and we wonder why our PT usage is low by comparison to other cities. In fact I would argue its actually not too bad given all these “carrots” that are out there for travel by private car – makes one wonder how PT could potentially surge if these “carrots” were removed.
The population density is mis-leading because Vancouver has farmland within the census Metropolitan Area that is protected in the Agricultural land reserve.
The differences are dramatic and, as you pointed out, it certainly isn’t a matter of trains because they don’t seem to have any.
Taking a peek at the city in Google Earth, they might not have many motorways but they do have some industrial strength urban and suburban roads which sometimes include elevated sections and grade separated junctions.
But do people really travel 30km from Langley to the CBD on a bus? Or 20km from Surrey? Are Canadians just happier to spend longer periods sitting on a bus than Aucklanders are? Or do people in the distant ‘burbs just not commute in to the center?
You are actually quite correct on this. Most people living out in Surrey and Langley don’t actually travel to Vancouver. This is mostly cause we get cheat on transit well Vancouver gets it all. Although people in Surrey and Langley dont have direct connection with downtown. We have to go to one of the stations in Surrey and ride the skytrain to downtown. Also note the lack of service isn’t due to population as Surrey is the second most populated city in BC and the fastest growing.
Also the maps in use are actually out of date as the Canada line(lower left one that looks like a Y) is now open which gives up 2.5 rail routes now. The canada line was open before the olympics. when that one open up the 98 B was removed(which is the one going straigh up and down).
Chris, yes a ticketing system that allows ‘invisible’ penalty-free transfers is critical for such a ‘grid and transfer’ network to function properly, although of course a time based ticket won’t achieve that on its own.
In terms of subsidy such a network should require a lot less, as it uses a similar number of vehicles to carry serveral times as many people (i.e. buses tend to be well used on all routes in both directions at all times, rather than just one way at peak times). Thats visible above in the fact that Vancouver has half the subsidy per boarding, indicating that if Auckland adopted a similar model it might be able to either halve it’s subsidy bill or conversely double the number of people carried at current subsidy levels.
AdG, apart from issues around minimum parking requirements I’m not even sure if we need to remove the existing ‘carrots’ to car driving. Rather it might just be a case of not continuing to improve and expand car provision ‘carrots’, then over time these carrots will slide into sticks as the population grows. I.e. we need only sit back and watch as road and parking congestion becomes a major disincentive to driving, as long as we don’t continue to build new road and parking capacity.
Obi, Aucklanders are ‘happy’ to catch buses from Papakura and Orewa to the CBD, and that is about 30km. Why wouldn’t Vacouverites do the same? The rule of thumb is that people are generally comfortable with commutes up to one hour, under the right system you can travel pretty far on a bus in one hour.
Maybe it’s a case of a weak CBD actually being advantageous?
Another issue is that while Vancouver’s train system is small, the SkyTrain lines are extremely well used, and have great connectivity to bus routes. Also, as mentioned above, while Vancouver’s overall urban densities are low, a LOT of people live in nodes around the rail corridors.
I’ve appreciated the Vancouver PT when traveling, and it does seem to work particularly well. There’s a couple of things that may make some difference. Auckland is an isthmus, so it’s more difficult for motorways to not go through the city – though with the SW motorway finally getting finished, that may be improved somewhat. Second, Vancouver seems comfortable with elevated roads/skytrain, which it seems Auckland is not.
Greg: “Second, Vancouver seems comfortable with elevated roads/skytrain, which it seems Auckland is not.”
Both elevated road and rail are usually ugly, although I have seen some attractive elevated rail systems. Miami’s for instance. But not the Sydney Monorail, which is hideous.
But is this a matter of seismic practicality rather than preference? I was in San Francisco at the time of the Loma Prieta earthquake and saw what I880 did to cars. The next time there is a big earthquake in NZ I don’t want to be anywhere near concrete structures on stilts.
I think the RTN network we have finally started developing is showing that if you have a decent alternative to driving people will flock to it. If only we could focus on putting a few more in it would make a huge difference.
Vancouver has the same risk of earthquakes as Auckland, or worse.
It’s just that Aucklanders have been indulged with the idea that rail can’t be elevated in their area (not that it really needs it, I would suspect Underground is more use).
The comparison between Vancouver and Auckland is appropriate.
Secondly, if I didn’t have a monthly pass, the tickets bought on the system were valid for two hours in *any* direction and *any* mode of transport (bus, ferry or skytrain). That meant you could go do your grocery shopping easily, or go meet a friend for coffee, or whatever.
It’s 90 minutes, not 2 hours, but yes it’s great (not least of all because you can backtrack on a single transfer, something that is not allowed in, e.g., Montreal and Toronto, which prevents you from grocery shopping or going for coffee and making it home on a single ticket).
Thirdly, boarding was relatively painless. The drivers weren’t cashiers as well as drivers. They drove. But you either showed your monthly pass (a different colour/design for each month), or you dropped your fare in the fare box – this was designed so that the driver could see the money being dropped and would know that you only dropped in two quarters and not three as needed – and the driver gave you a ticket in return. Should you drop more than the fare required, tough luck cause the driver didn’t have a change box.
Since about 2003-04, the boxes “count” your coins and don’t issue a ticket until you’ve reached the requisite total.
But there was no weird blatherings by wingnut politicans about free markets and such like – it was simply accepted that the greater public good generated by the system
Have to disagree with you on that one. Wingnuttery is extremely widespread in Vancouver, and is more likely to be on display in debates over public transport that almost anything else. This is evident in both effective political opposition to extension of the Skytrain line, and in fare increases for PT users greatly exceeding, e.g., increases in gas taxes.
But do people really travel 30km from Langley to the CBD on a bus? Or 20km from Surrey? Are Canadians just happier to spend longer periods sitting on a bus than Aucklanders are? Or do people in the distant ‘burbs just not commute in to the center?
No. No. No. and No. You’re on the money, Obi. Unless these people are poor and/or students and/or place no value on their time, they drive. And drive. And drive. Rush hour starts before 6am in the outer reaches of Langley (approx. 50 km from Vancouver CBD).
Isn’t it funny how great minds think alike? Three years ago, my husband and I had to go to Vancouver for a family emergency. We had no idea what to expect having not gone before. One member of the family took pity on us and explained the transport system. When we realised we could go just about anywhere in Vancouver by public transport, that there was a bus, train or ferry we could utilise easily, we spent time exploring the city. And it was cheap! $8.00 per day per person covered all trips on all available public transport. We were so impressed, we believed that their model could be utilised to great extent here in Auckland. But instead, we still have idiots that believe bigger better wider more expensive motorways are the way to go. What a laugh! People like John Banks need to get a grip. Spend some of the money ear marked for lunches and send someone to actually investigate what Vancouver has done.
Because of the stupidity of not protecting routes elevated lines down the middle of, say the motorway to the airport, or Te Irirangi Dr may be the best solution. Can be elegant, depends on the spend though….
I was born and raised in Vancouver and now live in Auckland. Auckland’s Bus system isn’t really as bad as everyone makes out. I actually think the biggest reason Vancouver’s bus system is so effective actually has nothing to do with the bus system at all, it’s the grid street pattern that was laid out in the 1800’s. Grid’s are the most efficient way for Pedestrian’s and even traffic to get around. In comparision to Vancouver Auckland’s Street pattern includes winding roads with long blocks that are spaced out and frequently interupted. Even the author highlights the grid, enabling “anywhere to anywhere” travel throughout this part of the city. You are lucky here in Auckland because your rail lines travel through high density neighbourhoods and are not used by Freight traffic. The Westcoast express line moves thru largerly industrial lands with trackage rights having to be paid to CPR.
Scot you’re right that the grid street pattern helps Vancouver a lot. However there are also things like free transfers, high frequencies, good customer information and so forth which Vancouver also does well. The Skytrain idea of having relatively short, but very high frequency trains (possible because they’re driverless) was also a master-stroke.
Definitely agree about the transfers, frequencies, etc. Continuous Bus lanes during peak hours would be a great start, but god knows the city’s drivers can’t bare to have their cars inconvenienced. The Northern Busway is actually a great system that could see future conversation to light rail with higher density housing around nodes. Skytrain is great for moving people but it doesn’t provide a great urban presence, in many ways the large concrete piers supporting the elevated tracks destroy neighbourhoods. Look at Number 3 Road in Richmond. An on grade Light rail system or tram provides for a better urban fabric with better street frontages. The train lines here have all the bones in place, all that’s needed is double tracks, electrification, and new dense mixed use developments around stations. By the way this discussion is link to Gordon Price’s blog from Vancouver
http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/auckland-and-vancouver-a-comparison/
I was wondering a bit why I had a tonne of Canadia visitors to an old blog post!
The Northern Busway here is interesting, and I agree that it has tonnes of potential for redevelopment around some of its stations. Unfortunately there is very little walk-up patronage at the moment.
I live in Surrey but I commute to Burnaby on a regular basis. It is 20 km for me. Usually I bike during most of the year except the winter when I would take the bus and skytrain in. If I worked downtown I would not drive to downtown but would either take the bus to the train or drive and park near or at the train stations. I can get downtown from my place to downtown by public transit in 1 hour. Without traffic it would take 40 minutes to drive but with traffic it is about the same as transit. Not all areas are as connected as where I live in Surrey but generally most routes go towards the Skytrain stations.
I guess there are no bike lanes on the Hwy 1 bridge in Auckland? We have 2 bridges with no bike routes, HWY 99 from Richmond to Delta but a shuttle operates there and all bus routes in the city carry bikes and HWY 1 from Surrey to Coquitlam which has neither a shuttle or bus routes. Thankfully this bridge is being replaced and will have bike paths and 5 more lanes (but with tolls).
No, there are only eight freeway lanes on the Auckland Harbour Bridge (State Highway 1), walking and cycling are impossible while public transport is limited to buses on the freeway. There have been some recent proposals to add cycle/pedestrian lanes at a cost of a few tens of millions of dollars, but that was deemed too expensive.
Bikes are banned on buses, and there are no trains to the north. The only option for cyclists is a fairly long detour to one of the harbour ferries.
Central Auckland is something of an island with only two short strips of land and a few bridges connecting it to the rest of the city in all directions, so the lack of a cycleway on the bridge is even more painful for cycling.
@Nick R – I was under the impression the plans for the cycleway/walkway under the Harbour bridge were progressing well?
http://getacross.org.nz/