Some interesting insight into the thinking of NZ Bus is in the latest issue of Infratil’s investor update which came out last week.

NZ Bus was acquired by infratil in 2005 at a price which was a discount to the value of the assets of the business. A transaction at such a price is saying “if you were starting again with these assets, you wouldn’t put them together in this way”. the subsequent six years has involved changing the way the company operates so that capital invested in new systems, staff, buses and depots does not represent $0.90 coming out for $1.00 going in.

This has meant developing stronger relations with the regional transport agencies and a more efficient business. Government has also done its bit by developing a regulatory and contracting regime based on commercial incentives and clearly differentiated roles for transport agencies and private operators.

2012 will be a watershed year for bus public transport, especially in Auckland, as new contracts are offered to operators through a mixture of tenders and private negotiations. The contracts will provide operators with the certainty necessary for investment in services, and with the opportunity to position for longer term growth.

NZ Bus currently provides about half of all Auckland’s public transport passenger trips. It aims to win its share of the new contracts, but achieving this will depend on NZ Bus being both relatively efficient and able to earn a fair return on the capital required. If a normal contract entailing 20 new buses means investing up to $10 million the returns have to justify the allocation of funds.

At the time of its acquisition in 2005 it was hoped that NZ Bus would be able to expand by competing on a level playing field with private cars and trains. It was believed that if Government (central and local) allocated funding to where it would create the greatest urban transport benefit for Auckland and Wellington, then that funding would favour an expansion of bus public transport. The cost of additional roadways or rail services was an order of magnitude greater than expanding and improving bus public transport. In fact transport decisions were made on political rather than economic grounds and the bus share of the urban transport funding pie shrank. The more open contracting regime, greater government focus on value-formoney, and high fuel prices all auger well for bus public transport in the future.

I certainly get the feeling from that last part that they aren’t happy about the investment that has happened in rail over the last decade, regardless of how justified it might be but I guess that is understandable as they would want more money invested with them.

In 2012 NZ Bus expects to agree new long-term contracts with Auckland Transport. These contracts have evolved through a prolonged consultation between regulators and service operators and they should result in better public transport at a lower cost. In anticipation NZ Bus has been improving its efficiency and its ability to deliver services people want to use.

There is also a series of graphs which are probably the most interesting bit of the update. The first graph shows just how poor patronage is compared to a number of other cities but it isn’t something we didn’t already now. The targets set by the council as part of the Auckland plan should have us at about 70 trips per person per year in a decade which would put us near where Wellington is today and the long term goal is to have 100 trips per person in 30 years. The second graph is probably the most concerning for NZ Bus, over the last 7 or 8 years their share of PT trips has continued to drop, this is largely due to growth on the rail network and on the North Shore with the NEX which is run by Ritchies.

Over the last five years NZ Bus’s costs per passenger have been almost flat which has allowed a 12% fall in the real level of contract subsidies and a less than 3% increase in real passenger charges.

In this second series of graphs, the first one is quite interesting as it focuses on patronage on Mt Eden which is one of the ‘B Line’ routes. They were introduced in early 2010 and you can see that since then there has been almost consistently solid growth, as they say, this has come largely from increased frequencies and reliability which are two critical factors for customers. It will also be really interesting to see what happens to that last graph once PTOM comes in fully.

Share this

19 comments

  1. It is interesting to see that slightly more than half their income comes from passenger fares. The subsidy is not as high as I thought.

  2. I see this…

    “In 2012 NZ Bus expects to agree new long-term contracts with Auckland Transport. These contracts have evolved through a prolonged consultation between regulators and service operators and they should result in better public transport at a lower cost. In anticipation NZ Bus has been improving its efficiency and its ability to deliver services people want to use.”

    … as a tacit admission that they might not have been very efficient up til now, and that this contractual change means they’ve had to shape up to ensure they remain a big player. Good 🙂

  3. Interesting that cost and revenue per passenger is relatively static. This means that the only way to improve profitability is through passenger growth. There doesn’t appear to be any benefit from economies of scale as patronage increases

    With inflation, it is impressive to hold costs static but revenues have not increased with inflation either.

  4. If NZ Bus costs per trip have only risen 1% over the last 5 years, why are fare increases mostly predicated on rising costs, in particular fuel? I guess the new buses have to be paid for, and these aren’t operating costs but capital ones?

    1. Cameron – it looks like the subsidy per passenger is coming down so any fare increase is being offset by a decrease in subsidy from AT – a win for rate payers, not bus companies.

  5. Claims that bus is better suited to Auckland as it didn’t develop around trams/trains is pretty disingenuous claim seeing as large parts of teh city did indeed develop around those modes.

  6. Infratil / NZ Bus need to think more strategically about their stated intent to secure a greater long term share of the PT pie in AKL. Right now, all they’re doing is looking at things narrowly by trying to extract a long term bus operator contract out of AT. They should instead be looking at taking the rail operations contract off Veolia. Through that, they would have a ‘network’ that puts them heads and shoulders over their competiition (Ritchies etc). This would create an actual integrated bus and rail network, effect a mindset change on NZ Bus themselves (they will realise that rail is not a competitor but a great friend) and the travelling public will absoloutely love them for it.

    1. I don’t see how running the rail network would benefit NZ Bus much considering that things like route planning and fare setting are continuing to move back into the control of AT. With the new bus network that is being designed along with integrated fares the bus companies will become much more service providers delivering the service that AT wants. Also Veolia has just recently signed a new contract with AT so they will be around for a while unless someone buys the local operation off them.

    2. We do not see rail as a competitor, if you watch the persentation I gave at the Infratil Investor day – video available on Infratil website. Rail,Bus,Ferry in fact all modes need to operate in a symbiotic way to ensure that PT growth is sustainable and value for money is delivered. An intergrated network is vital. And yes we are exploring opportunities across all modes and assess them on a case by case basis.

      1. Yes great to have you commenting here Zane. It certainly seems as though NZ Bus are being much more constructive in recent times around improving PT in Auckland. More focused on “growing the pie” and not just on protecting their share of the pie. In the end, growing the pie benefits everyone so great to see the change in attitude.

        Also, while you’re here, I just would like to note that whatever customer service training you have put drivers through in the past few years has really paid off. The difference between friendliness now and the rudeness of a few years back is just night and day.

      2. Yes thanks for stopping by Zane. I also agree with Peter that NZ Bus seem to have been much more constructive in recent times which is great to see. Hopefully with all of the improvements coming soon everyone will be happy (including NZ Bus) and we will also see better value for money.

        One question though and I can appreciate if you can’t answer it, Infratil appears to have gone quiet on what it’s plans are for Snapper now that the Thales system is about to roll out. What’s happening to it?

  7. More years of Veolia operating the trains in AKL….depressing. Veolia lost the Melbourne Metro contract to MTR Corp didnt they (I wonder why….). Moreover, Veolia are getting out of rail services worldwide so it is interesting that AT have signed them up again…unless thats the only way to entice MTR into NZ over the next few years??

  8. Is it correct that Veolia’s contact with AT is until 2014? If so, by then, Veolia will have sold its 50% stake in Veolia-Transdev. The parent company Veolia Environnement, is heavily debt ridden and has already stated its intention to get out of transport to concentrate on its core water supply and waste management businesses. Given Transdev have already announced that they will concentrate on business in Asia and Australia, they may very well quit NZ by 2014 and sell the operation. A good opportunity for MTR Corp I’d say…cant see anyone else wanting to buy Veolia NZ, save a company that has rail services as its core business…

    1. They probably haven’t updated it yet, it has only recently been extended and this was in the April board report

      A new passenger services agreement has been negotiated with Veolia Transport with the expectation that the operator will enhance the management of the track access and rolling stock agreements. A performance regime that reflects these priorities is included in the new contract; to take effect from 1 July

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *