This is a Guest Post from regular commenter Patrick Reynolds
Rail boardings in Auckland are now approaching about 10 million annually. Setting aside issues of kilometres traveled and reports of under-counting on the existing network I thought it might be useful to look ahead to try to see where this number might be heading.
Starting from an almost completely dead system growth has been constant since Britomart opened in 2003, roughly quadrupling in 8 years. Over that period there has been a great deal of work on the rundown and neglected network and its services and there is more to come. So can we expect this rate to continue, decline or even improve?
If we simply extend the rate of growth from the last year, 16%, and compound it we get the following: [year to June, millions]
2011: 9.80
2012: 11.37
2013: 13.19
2014: 15.30
2015: 17.74
2016: 20.58
So it seems not unreasonable by this metric to expect boardings to double to a pretty useful 20 million over the next 5 years. Given Auckland’s relatively low use of public transport clearly it will only take a small shift in circumstances or appeal of the service for these numbers to be possible. Supporting this view are the very significant improvements that are coming.
The opening of the new Manukau City Station will clearly attract a lot of new train users. Real Integrated Ticketing will make transfers between modes instantly more attractive. And there are to be more services especially in the off peak periods. Ten minute services on the Western Line will offer a frequency that liberates users from needing timetables.
If these improvements are able to be combined with a substantial reorganization of bus routes to enable people to transfer to the faster and more direct train services then it is likely that this growth estimate may be too conservative. Add to this the introduction of shinny new electric trains around 2014 and despite the likely disruption the change of systems will cause, this improvement in capacity, speed, reliability and appeal will surely also speed passenger growth.
Then there are other factors that drive PT use, especially the ‘push’ factors of the cost of petrol and the general state of the economy. Again it is likely that these factors will further accelerate demand for all forms of PT. So perhaps we can expect the completion of electrification to lead to the type of growth that occurred in Perth in 1993 when it was introduced there?
Fascinating that Auckland is now at the point that Perth was in terms of numbers at their electrification and extension in 1993. But there are a number of differences.
Though the Auckland network is already quite extensive even once electrification is complete there is the limit imposed by the Britomart terminus. Other than the spur to Manukau there will be no actual extension of the reach of the network in this period, and trying to run a Metro style service around a terminus is limiting.
Because of this structural problem I don’t expect that we will be able to have a Perth type of jump in numbers until the CRL is built to unlock the capacity in the network. Although there are some options for wringing more out of the existing track like adding West/South services that bypass Britomart, it seems likely that the news will be full of frustrated train users on packed trains stuck outside of Britomart. Really there is no avoiding the need for the CRL under any analysis unless your aim is to limit the growth in rail use.
However assuming both the CRL and the Mangere Line are open within ten years we ought by then to be able to expect a Perth like transformation in ridership. A jump to something like 40 million by 2021 is not unlikely. Again so long as AT are able to coordinate bus transfer services….Interesting that 40 million is around the current 16% growth rate [43.23 mil., in fact].
A 20% rate would give us 60 million by 2021. A figure that Perth might achieve around 2013, twenty years after the first big jump…. No wonder Einstein called compounding interest the greatest mystery of the universe.
Processing...
Whilst electrification certainly boosted patronage growth in Perth, I think the real growth spurts occured from increasing the size of the network (and therfore the catchment for rail) from the addition of the Joondaloop and Mandurah lines. In the Auckland context, the CRL will boost the patronage from existing rail served areas of Auckland, but Perth style growth, in my view, is only likely to occur when lines to the North Shore and Eastern suburbs are built. I’m not convinced that a line to Mangere/ Airport would have as great an effect however.
How does Perth compare to Brisbane, which I assume is the next busiest?
Auckland is probably way ahead of Adelaide, also electrifying currently, although Adelaide have a nice terminus with a wide throat and lots of platforms.
I think West to South trains will have to come next. 2 per hour from maybe Swanson to Manukau might be a good amount. Or potentially Onehunga, if capacity is raised through double tracking (and platforming) there – which I think is an excellent first step towards the Mangere/AKL line. Onehunga to West would provide quicker turnarounds and so use less units.
There is a lot of suppressed demand in Auckland these new journeys might unlock.
My guess is that by the end of 2012 and throughout 2013 we will see pretty constrained growth as a result of capacity constraints although there are still a few things we could do yet (shortening a few 4 car SA sets to 3 cars and only using them off peak while shifting the extra car to a peak service to create more 5 and 6 car sets). After we start getting a decent number of electric sets operational we should hopefully start to see decent improvements again for a few years.
Once the EMU’s are up and running the key will be ensuring that we leverage integrated fares to make the changes needed to the bus network to both stop bus routes competing with rail and to create routes that specifically feed rail stations. Doing that should really help to boost patronage but I think the real jump won’t be till the CRL is opened
[offtopic] Einstein never said that.
I suspect capacity constraints will mean that future growth is linear rather than exponential (or compounding), but I hope I’m wrong. My money is on AT hitting its RLTS target of 16 million by 2016.
After that it really comes down to how much we can squeeze out of the network from “make-shift” improvements. As well as the direct west-east service AT could run a central circulator around the SE and Southern lines, stopping at the new Parnell Station, as opposed to Britomart.
And if capacity constraintsstart to bind, then there’s a case for increasing fares. Doing so will increase revenue and reduce the “funding gap” thereby improving the business case for the CRL. I just don’t see why we should persist with high subsidies in the presence of high demand … for any mode.
In traffic, public transport and other such areas growth doesn’t compound.
Money in the bank earns interest in the form of more money at a linear rate, and then that new money also earns interest at a linear rate so the overall end result is compounding interest growth. (We won’t get into where the money to pay that interest comes from)
A new passenger using rail doesn’t create a new rail passenger so the growth is not compounding. A variety of factors produce PT growth including increasing costs of private travel and improved PT services. Those factors may drive growth at varying rates but they won’t be compounding.
Yes but growth can be exponential, one person starts using a system and doesn’t stop when another joins… it is not the same as interest and perhaps my use of the word compounding is sloppy [I’m no economist or mathhead] but the observable outcome is the same. We can see it in the graphs above. In some sense a satisfied regular traveler is like money in the bank, or at least should be treated as such by the service providers… but that’s me being metaphorical again….
Your intuition is right Patrick – positive feedback loops exists between travel choices and other socio-economic decisions (like where to live/work and how many vehicles to own). Contrary to what Wes suggests, positive feedback can create non-linear growth.
But you would expect these effects to “dampen” out over time – so we can’t expect growth will continue to accelerate (i.e. compound), especially in the presence of capacity constraints. But my gut feeling is there’s a long way to go before Auckland gets anywhere near market saturation for public transport of any kind.
Only when you hit the 200 trips per capita mark would I expect linear growth (in the absence of capacity constraints).
I guess my point is that Perth shows us that you can get extreme changes if you build for them. Those are two very steep accelerations in boardings as a direct result of providing better services on an expanded network… I’m really just building an argument around the possible value of big capital expenditures like the CRL.
The recent past in Auckland has shown that incremental changes to the service has been rewarded with solid incremental improvements in use. Post electrification we will be poised for dramatic jumps, but only if we plan for them and build them.
Of course we have a minister who would rather increase subsidies to a muddling PT system than one that can see the transformative value in bold investments in capital expansions. Yet is determined to waste capital on low returning non-transformative [in fact repetitive] highway projects….. meh.
Chinese proverb: ‘First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is…’
Yeah you are pretty wrong there Wes.
Socio-economic changes can “compound” if they are linked to downstream changes in economic behaviour that also cause an increase in trips. For example, additional rail trips might be expected to lift land values around stations, which in turn drives higher densities and in turn more patronage. A similar story could be told for vehicle ownership – people use rail for peak trips might find it enables them to live with one vehicle fewer than they otherwise would, again causing extra rail trips they would not have taken.
We’re basically talking about positive feedback loops. Now, they can’t go on forever, but that’s besides the point – changes in travel behaviour can have compounding effects, at least in an aggregate sense.
You have misunderstood me. Perhaps we are discussing a literal vs figurative interpretation of the word “compounding”.
I agree that an increase in say public-transport usage can flow on to other changes, such as more density around stations, in a positive feedback loop that could create a snowball effect that leads to further PT investment and increases in public transport use.
I’m not saying you can’t have postive feedback which could produce a growth pattern that is not a single straight line. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t simply apply the standard compounding interest formula (used for money) to predict that growth.
Both the Auckland and Perth graphs are better approximated by a series of straight lines (perdiods of linear growth at different rates) rather than the single smooth exponential curve predicted by the compounding growth formula.
In any case the Perth data should help to show that investment in providing new services can result in a huge upwswing in use, and I think that is a very good thing; but it will require a corresponding increase in system capacity, even with peak-spreading shifting demand to off-peak times.
Wes, I am not proposing that there is some kind of causative compounding of PT user numbers, but rather that we can look back to recent growth to extrapolate possible future growth. That’s all. And I don’t get what’s unreasonable about this idea. There is a clear and fairly consistent trend evident in the last 8 years in AK numbers and until the whole thing chokes at the tunnel into Britomart I see no good reason why it shouldn’t continue as the factors driving this growth will still be there. Well until capacity limits constrains it.
Also I want to make the point that we can, in all likelihood, have much more accelerated growth too if we built for it, a la Perth.
I can’t find it now but I recall some suggestion of around 20 million as the likely limit for the current network and I just want to ask the question ‘ when might we hit that?’ To only hit 16 mil by 2016 would either reflect a much delayed or chaotic roll out of the EMUs or constant break down around the Britomart choke point and/or continual rolling stock failures. All of which could happen.
Otherwise I see all the problems being on the up side [ie capacity], not least of which because the zeitgeist has changed profoundly. Instead of people asking ‘why wouldn’t we prefer to drive?’ it’s ‘where is the service?’ Seriously it’s like night and day in Auckland now and the opinion polls all reflect this. I see no longer any unusually high attitudinal resistance to getting out of the car and for the growth rate to slow significantly it would have to be because failures in delivery. Especially perhaps a failure to build towards a true integrated network. I am weary of the roll the private bus companies might play in this, for example, will they be interested in building the whole PT market or just defending their current routes and further mining the subsidy system? I am also weary of the continued downward pressure on infrastructure investment from NZTA, AMETI looks threatened, for example. All of which is crazy as the best way to lower the per rider [or per km] subsidy is to improve and grow the system.
With regard to prices I think the best way forward is to make a proper differential between cash and card when real Integrated ticketing is up and running. In other words a sizable cash penalty. And I’ve never understood the 10c difference between trains and buses.
But let’s not forget NZTA calculates Auckland PT costs at a BCR of 4.4…. still a bargain, but surely can be even better.
Growth has been sustained by adding 18 to 20 carriages to the network each year between 2005 and 2010. In 2011 that plummetted to just 4 carriages, and for each of 2012 and 2013 it will be 0 new carriages. Relief won’t come until the first EMU’s enter service in the later half of 2014.
I don’t see how growth can be sustained at the current rate. I think about a year from now it will stagnate and not resume until late 2014 or 2015.
But surely Manukau Station and HOP card will keep patronage growing, albeit more slowly? What you’re effectively saying is that ALL the patronage growth is happening in the peak, which I simply don’t believe.
Growth can still occur off-peak (early morning, middle of the day, evenings, weekends, non-busy months etc etc). So I think you will find growth continues, just as not as fast as it has in the recent past.
Josh it’d be interesting to know the split in patronage between peak/off-peak – do you have any data on this? You could simulate the effects of capacity constraints by just saying no more peak travellers …
Yes it’s my understanding that the existing assets are going to be worked harder off peak. Whether they or the systems are up to it or not is a consideration but this does mean there is going to be additional capacity, at least next year. And so good to see capacity anticipating demand in AK, as we normally have to deal with the circular argument where the absence of a service is used as proof as an absence of demand. If the last twenty years in Perth show anything it is that if a high quality service is provided and run properly then it will be used enthusiastically. We should build for the demand we can have not what there is now.
But we are entering interesting territory, I guess it is two years plus of consolidation before the EMUs arrive. Two things here, first if I’m right about the growing appetite [and this is exponential] then I do hope this isn’t wasted in bad news about breakdowns and failures. And second is don’t underestimate the excitement that will build around the new trains, again I hope it can be delivered on. Especially, and it does look likely, as the external forces driving demand are just going to accelerate.
Again, it will only take a correction in our unusually high dollar and/or the continued rise of the oil price to see $4/litre at NZ’s pumps… could happen next year, easily.
I understand it’s about a 50/50 patronage split between peak and off-peak on Auckland’s rail system.
maybe average trip length will grow. ie more people from Henderson will catch the train to the CBD, this could push some Avondale users back to buses. This will help increase farebox recovery too.
Won’t show up as a patronage increase, but it is really as trains will be fuller for more of the journey.
Hello, long time reader, first time poster. I think the key to emulation of Perth’s PT success is the effective integration of feeder buses into railway stations. The ‘spark effect’ of electrification is only part of the story of Perth’s rise. This is the foundation stone of Perth’s effective rail system. Peter Martinovich from TransPerth did a very good paper on this at the CORE2008 conference in Perth. A powerpoint that touches on the main points is here.
In terms of cities to benchmark Auckland against in terms of PT, I am reminded of the keynote speech at the Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF) 2009 in Auckland, where the Mayor spoke about Auckland benchmarking itself against Brisbane economically and socially. I would recommend having a look at Brisbane’s PT performance since electrification in the late 1970s-early 1980s. There are some useful similarities, mainly:
* urban area mostly under a single urban government
* rail electrification brought forward as part of a sporting mega-event (1982 Commonwealth Games)
* Trains/buses under different ownership and operations not co-ordinated
* Weak-centred PT network coordination body
However, great post and it’s good that there are people in Auckland who are looking at long-term growth trends.
HW
Thanks Harold, and yes I couldn’t agree more. Brisbane did some odd things around ripping up rail to put in busways, but I’m no expert on that. The weak co-ordination powers in AK are a concern. And of course it isn’t enough to have the ROW there you’ve got to work it.
With proper co-ordination I expect Manukau station to be a star performer. It may be a slow build but given the distance to the CBD and population in the greater area, if the buses are routed there from the start it could be a good test case for further expansion…. better still with IT….
Open question: where else do you think that Manukau Line users could or would connect to? (I’m assuming a better network of feeders at sources and destinations)
I’m still interested in the idea of developing around Sylvia Park, or increasing commercial development at Panmure. If I’d thought about that earlier, I would have put it in my Auckland Plan submission. I also think there’s a great opportunity to remake Greenlane. It really is very well positioned for intensification of use.
I am weary of the roll the private bus companies might play in this, for example, will they be interested in building the whole PT market or just defending their current routes and further mining the subsidy system? I am also weary of the continued downward pressure on infrastructure investment from NZTA, AMETI looks threatened, for example. All of which is crazy as the best way to lower the per rider [or per km] subsidy is to improve and grow the system.
Damn. I’m scared now. Infratil is a powerful company, and this government listens to its mates. Mates who give them “cheap” answers that avoid investment and load capacity on the private sector are likely to be attractive.
(And this is why I don’t like PT people pushing for low-cost low-quality solutions. Auckland had 50 years of the cheap solution. It didn’t work.)
I meant to link to Chris Harris’ post on Perth in the body of the post above, somehow this didn’t happen, so here it is:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2010/12/11/guest-post-alternative-auckland-notes-on-perth/
apologies