TomTom have released their annual congestion rankings and reported that Auckland is the 17th most congested city in the world.
The City of Sails is fast becoming the City of Snails, and is rising on a list of the world’s most congested cities compiled by navigation firm TomTom.
The report, which compares congestion levels in 169 cities across six continents, found New Zealand cities were experiencing some of the biggest increases in congestion.
On the list of the most congested cities, Auckland is ranked 15th, Christchurch 17th and Wellington 37th.
New Zealanders now spend a staggering 101 hours annually in peak-hour traffic, with Auckland having the biggest increase in congestion across Australia and New Zealand.
The congestion level for Auckland is measured at 34 per cent in the last June quarter, up from 30 per cent the year before. In Christchurch and Wellington it is 32 per cent and 28 per cent respectively.
At its worst, Aucklanders are stuck in traffic for an average of 47 minutes for each hour driven.
That all sounds pretty bad but is it really? First it pays to look at how they calculate the congestion index. The reports – which can be found here – state that it is calculated as:
With the publication of the TomTom Traffic Index we are aiming to provide the general public, industry and policy makers with unique and unbiased information about congestion levels in urban areas.
The methodology that is used in this report compares the travel times during non-congested periods (free flow) with travel times in peak hours. The difference is expressed as a percentage increase in travel time. We take into account local roads, arterials and highways. All data is based on actual GPS based measurements for each city the sample size is expressed in total number of measured miles for the period.
Straight away there is a major issue with this methodology and that is the comparison is based in just how fast you can travel if no one else was on the road compared to what happens at the during the peak period. This is a serious issue for a few reasons.
1. Cities that have a lot of all-day congestion won’t appear as bad on the report because there is less of a difference between free flow and congested periods.
2. Many of our roads have been built to try and handle peak congestion periods and are relatively empty off peak allowing for much faster speeds. The motorways are a great example as they are often bursting at the seams during the peak but can be comparatively empty off peak allowing for much much faster journeys. The Northwestern motorway is perhaps the prime example of this and is now going through another round of widening.
3. The biggest issue though is that by comparing travel times by in this manner, it ignores what the most efficient speed for moving vehicles is. By that I mean over the same stretch of road more people overall can be moved if they are travelling slow than if they are travelling 100km/h. This is something that was picked up strongly in the research conducted for the NZTA by Ian Wallis and Associates which looked at the cost of congestion. They noted the differences between the definitions of congestion as:
Various definitions of congestion were reviewed and it was found that the concept of congestion is surprisingly ill-defined. A definition commonly used by economists treats all interactions between vehicles as congestion, while a common engineering definition is based on levels of service and recognises congestion only when the road is operating near or in excess of capacity. A definition of congestion based on the road capacity (ie the maximum sustainable flow) was adopted. The costs of congestion on this basis are derived from the difference between the observed travel times and estimated travel times when the road is operating at capacity.
The graph below shows the engineering definition mentioned above.
4. The TomTom report misses one key aspect and that is the ability of people to travel congestion free. Investments in the rail network, Northern busway and even just some of the bus lane network in the old Auckland City Council area have led to dramatic rises in the number of people using Public Transport. In the case of the busway, it has seen the number of people crossing the harbour bridge increase from 18% in 2004 to 41% in 2011. These people are travelling almost completely free of congestion (with the notable exception of in the city centre) yet the amount of time they spend on their commute isn’t captured by this data at all because they are almost certainly not carrying a TomTom with them.
Instead of being a congestion index report, what the report really should be called is a private vehicle travel time variability report.
I do note some interesting responses in the articles about the report. In the herald we get
The New Zealand Transport Agency said it was working to improve traffic flow in cities through investment in public transport services and infrastructure, roading and facilities.
“Our investment in public transport is at unprecedented levels, having risen by over 20 per cent nationwide in just three years,” said agency spokesman Anthony Frith.
“We’re also investing in walking and cycling facilities that will get people out of their cars and onto their bikes or travelling by foot.”
In Auckland, the agency was investing $3.4 billion in the region’s transport system, including $1.6 billion for state highways, $968 million for roads and $890 million for public transport.
Well most of the increase in costs for PT are to pay for the NZTA’s share of the loan for the new electric trains. I’m not saying that isn’t welcome but not necessarily the massive investment suggested. Further a small fraction of that is going towards PT infrastructure.
And from Stuff:
Automobile Association principal infrastructure adviser Barney Irvine said a focus needed to be put on getting more out of the existing network.
“Public transport is an important part of the puzzle but it is only one part.
“The big thing is to try and get more out of the existing network.”
Mr Frith said several initiatives were in place to try to ease congestion in all of the cities.
Auckland had a $3.4b programme of investment in the region’s transport system from 2012 to 2015. This included improvements to state highways, local roads and public transport.
I agree that we need to get more out of the existing network and it’s good to see the AA acknowledging that.
Lastly if we really want to move people around then then the Congestion Free Network would allow people to do that completely free of congestion giving some real choice.
Processing...
This is a great article that Brent Toderian linked to recently showing the sillyness of Tomtom. Gives huge bias to motorway dominated cities, if you are driving a long way on free flowing roads your city will do well, but if you drive small distances on local roads your city will do badly. Hence Vancouver with 0 motorways in the city area scores second worst. http://sfb.nathanpachal.com/2012/07/tomtom-congestion-index-useless-for.html?spref=tw
And this one:
“But automobile congestion, vehicle delay, and their proxy, level-of-service, are not measures of system efficiency. Nor are they measures of economic vitality. They are nothing more or less than measures of how convenient it is to drive an automobile.”
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/06/defense-congestion/2118/
TomTom thinks we are DumDum.
Yes – I imagine traffic into Detroit is flowing congestion free – not for good reasons though.
I’m talking to Duncan Garner on radio live about this report later this afternoon
don’t be a tease matt- what time and station?
After 4 on Radio Live
here http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Auckland-Wellington-and-Christchurch-named-as-some-of-the-worst-traffic-in-the-world/tabid/506/articleID/38834/Default.aspx#.UnsYSPlaV8E
And it looks like Kansas City, Cleveland and Indianapolis are “good” cities using this index. Not sure why they didn’t consider Detroit??
http://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/
Er Mr Greening was not elected
OK. Still, it’s a formal Auckland proposal. My take: leave it up to the readers to decide if this thread should be deleted.
Not only was he not elected, ‘councilman’ is not a term used in New Zealand. I don’t think you are going to get “subsequent supportive posts” to such a blatant and misleading advertisement.
Comment removed because of violation of guideline 8 iii:
8. The editors decide what is acceptable. We reserve the right to delete comments and suspend accounts as we see fit. Grounds for suspension include:
iii. Blatant promotion of products and/or services
It’s good to see the NZTA are investing more in getting people to walk by foot. I’m sure people will appreciate that.
I thought the $890m being spent on public transport for the electric trains comprised $500m which was a loan to the Auckland Council which is payable by city ratepayers?
While I agree with the concerns about the methodology, wouldn’t the results indicate that we have probably moved up the rankings for congestion which is a cause for concern of which I’m glad it puts the transport agencies on the spot to answer to.
Equally it could indicate that peak congestion stayed the same while off peak travel times got better.
Let’s remember. TomTom want to sell more gps units. These ‘studies’ are PR in the guise of news. Classic marketing strategy.
Matt. Very useful analysis. Your point about Auckland’s network being built to meet peak demand is well made – you can often travel at off peak times at the speed limit – but it’s the peak time speed ratios that TomTom reports. However I think that TomTom data is a huge technological advance on the origin – destination surveys that have been so costly for Council to obtain – which are suspect (based on what people say – rather than what they actually do) – and upon which much of Auckland’s predict and provide travel transport modelling is based. Perhaps we need TomTom to provide bike, pedestrian and PT downloads and portable versions so we can all benefit from route finding by mode, and the planners can get more comprehensive info….
I think the assumption that rail is congestion free is misguided. Trains can also run into traffic, have breakdowns that choke systems, and be miserably overcrowded. Tomtoms report is what it is, a comparison of peak vrs off peak road flow. It has it flaws but that doesn’t mean it’s not an indicator of road problems in Auckland and a reason to invest in more motorways. As a rule of thum cities with better motorways have less congestion.
+1, and isn’t the reason we’re building the CRL because the rail network is ‘congested’.
No the rail network is a dead end, it isnt congested. We arent completing SH20 with the Waterview connection because it is congested but because it doesnt go anywhere. And the CRL was a concept ebfore any motorway was dreamed of in Auckland.
Of course! Every system can suffer from congestion, in London they are currently building an Underground for the Underground because the old one is full [Crossrail].
But i think we all know that the term ‘Congestion’ in traffic dominated cities like Auckland is shorthand for Traffic Congestion. So in this context it is clearly completely accurate to describe any system that bypasses this problem as ‘Congestion Free’.
Furthermore, this raises another important point [thank-you again Phil]. Traffic Congestion is an inefficient dis-benefit economically- activity dispersing car flooded environments are not highly productive, where-as human congestion, packed trains for example flooding commercial precincts with intense quantities of customers are highly concentrative and financially productive [and culturally and socially]. Especially when the means of delivering those people has such a small impact on the quality of place and room for transaction, whether commercial, cultural, or social, like underground train systems.
Essentially, as a rule, the more you make a place accessible by large volumes of cars the less attractive that place will be. Why else does the rest of the urban world build rail systems?
Really? Houston and LA have good motorways and are known for terrible peak congestion
Tuttute: ‘As a rule of thum cities with better motorways have less congestion.’
Surely the key issue is that congestion league tables like this are simply not a useful guide to transport system efficiency without more information.
The aim is access, not just mobility. A city where people spend a lot of time travelling a long distance on congestion free roads to satisfy their needs is not more efficient than one where people spend a little time travelling a short distance on congested roads.
The first city will look better on congestion league tables, yet the second city is more efficient – people satisfy their transport needs at less total resource cost.
The ability to travel less distance to satisfy one’s needs is of course a result of urban planning policy, not transport planning narrowly defined.
And this is the problem because we have siloed those disciplines. We give one, motorway building, multiple billions of dollars of public money every year, yet don’t charge those spending it to improve urban form in their outcomes. They are told to build one thing only and act as if the only effects of their work are movement ones, as narrowly defined as the TomTom one discussed here: Level Of Service, or vehicle speed. So the outcome is increased disconnection, longer commutes, inefficiently dispersed urban form. From Tauranga, to Hamilton, Auckland, now Wellington, and of course Christchurch.
As these highways inevitably clog the only answer as seen by this system to expensively double down on their mistaken process by spending billions more on widening existing corridors (eg SH16)and duplicating these expensive, severing, and dreary ‘assets’ with yet more traffic inducing versions of the same. Spending every penny available and now pulling fancy tricks to spend future taxes too through crooked gaming of the process; these so called PPPs.
This is a Ponzi scheme as every new road simply feeds the demand for more when they are only measured by LOS metric and the only permitted answer for failing LOS is more road space.
And as JS says above none of this takes into account the actual quality of outcomes for the community on any real level, not the actual time spent or quality of our ability to access what we need well, not the quality of the world that results from this monomania. Nor their true costs. Simply can every vehicle travel on roads at 100kph at all times? This is an autistic question that will always give an answer that goes nowhere towards improving our world.
Thanks for the post. Useful in explaining why their report is correct and yet irrelevant.
One other thing. Am I correct in reading that NZTA chart above in that it seems to be saying that in order to maximise the efficient use of road corridors the speed should be limited to no more, or less, than about 47KPH….?
Heh. That’d be popular!
Not really. I think roads are self-limiting (because of congestion), so only need to be this slow at peak times (as they are now), when their is enough demand to need full capacity.
Patrick, I actually agree with what you say above about traffic congestion being inefficient economically. I much prefer to use a train when available for cumuting to work as I can do work in the morning using wifi and even have a drink on the way home. Sure beats the horrors of the M25.
However I actually find Auckland traffic pretty easy and as the commutes are short by world standards, and as NZ is not in any time zone an email can’t wait till I got home, it’s quite convenient to take the car to meetings outside of the CBD. If I’m going to the city I am lucky to have fullers ferry 2 mins walk away. The reason I say this is to highlife that PT is great if it’s on your doorstep but a hassle if it isn’t, especially when taking your car is no real drama.
Another question to consider might also be, why do we need to spend money on transport systems that head into CBD’s? With Internet connections most office workers should stay at home and log in online. Broadband beats any transport system car, rail, private, pt, and delivers today with no actual costs.
Well of course Auckland isn’t congested at all in an absolute sense; think Manilla, KL, or Istanbul. But it is inefficiently congested by two other metrics: for its population size and for its vast investment in roads.
Ak is a small city with enough transport spending to be better connected. And the point is if we just compliment that big road network with the right investment in alternatives to make them effective and attractive for a small but significant mode shift and to accommodate growth then the current road network will not only continue to work well but actually work better. You and others that need or choose it will enjoy driving much more once we get better balance in our systems.
But also transport infrastructure forms the shape of a place; we cannot, for example, expect the centre city to continue to growth at three times the nation average if every new employee or employer has to drive and park there. Just can’t be done and the attempt would destroy both that growth and the increasing attractiveness of the flagship centre of our whole economy.
The idea that the internet means that the city is unnecessary or even in decline has clearly been shown to be totally false all over the world. In fact the rise in penetration, speed, and use of this new tech has been accompanied by the reverse: accelerated urbanisation and above average growth in city centres and residential areas proximate to them or efficiently connected with them, especially by systems that allow Internet use while moving!
Telecommuting is overrated. Let me give you a personal example. I work for a software company, and am the only employee in NZ. Our main office is in Asia, and we have another office in the UK. Greater than 97% of our revenue is export. Surely I’m the ideal telecommuter.
Yet being in the city is extremely useful. Today I have to get 2 passport photos taken- 2 minute walk. I have to sign a document to open a bank account in Aus- 200 metres to the bank. Of the few NZ clients we have, one is a 5 minute walk and one is 5 minutes on my bike. Excuse me, I’m off to meet my wife (works in Grafton) and daughter (at uni) for a coffee.
“The reason I say this is to highlife that PT is great if it’s on your doorstep but a hassle if it isn’t, especially when taking your car is no real drama.”
So?
If it is great for some people how say work 9-6 at MacDonalds in New Lynn who live at Henderson, that is one fewer car on the road, one bit less congestion.
I think they really need to publicise how little they comparatively spend on cycling/pedestrian infrastructure – an amount of 8million $/year is what I heard was the cycling budget for Auckland council (needs checking!) – if correct, it’s pretty dismal considering how much improvement it brings to the city.
Like most challenges facing Auckland it comes down to what we can afford and in some cases what we can’t afford not to do.
In my opinion based on our current and projected population the money available is best spent on roads. I say this because roads are door to door and cheaper to build around our geography than a rail network.
This is not to say I don’t think a rail network wouldn’t be great. Robbies ‘rapid rail’ was a lost opportunity but so much has changed then we missed the opportunity. A bit like Eden Park!
One day I hope/expect that we will replace the northern busway with a rail to Albany and that even sooner we will have rail to the airport. At the moment though we have just built the busway and that is doing the same job as trains would with no need for additional spend. Building the next harbour crossing that is road and rail future proofs Aucklands northern transport needs. In the immediate future it frees up capacity on the bridge for more frequent bus services along the northern corridor as well as Birkenhead, beachaven etc not on the busway. I agree with the CRL because it makes sense now and in the future.
Investment in better cycle trails is a no brainier because it’s very low cost and has benefits both to transport and healthcare. I would support a harbour cycle route if it came up with a design that didn’t place unfair impacts on residents. I expect this to be possible once a new crossing is built so cyclists and peds can use the existing bridge deck.
At the end of the day it’s about peoples opinions on how they wish their tax to be spent. It appears that the Govt has similar opinions to mine so I’ll continue to vote for them. Clearly there are people on this blog with a different vision. Thats fine by me, knowing politicians probably none of us will get what we want.
Roads cheaper to build? Ummm… Have you heard about the CFN by any chance. Any roads to be built in the Auckland region are extraordinarily expensive and disruptive due to mass housing demolition or tunnelling.
However the rest of your statements seem to totally contradict the rest of what you are saying, seem to want all of the CFN projects and urban cycleways too.
Must be a big road tolling fan, funnily enough that will mean no new roads need to be built as low value trips will easily be priced off the network onto PT, or just less aimless driving around to the furtherest mall.
You didn’t pay attention Luke.
I am saying everything is good but as we have a limited budget priority should be first for roads and then cycle paths and last rail.
If NZ suddenly find south sea oil or lamb prices skyrocket then great, we can have roads cycle paths and the train set.
Let me improve that thought for you:
We have a limited budget so we have to spend it cleverly; for a small city we have a widespread and high quality road asset that we use inefficiently, clogging it at critical times because if a lack of effective alternatives for those that would use them if available. Our investment priorities must go into sweating all our systems more, in order to get better value for better outcomes; happier better connected, better functioning, and wealthier communities, and a more efficient economy. Place quality effects must also always be considered along with movement ones when choosing what to invest in as as these investments are the primary way we shape our city.
Only then should we ask: what projects or modes will best meet these criteria?
Tuttut: ‘as we have a limited budget priority should be first for roads’
Does this mean the least important road project is always more important than the most important public transport project?
If infrastructure investments budgets are limited (which they are, rightly, because society also has other interests), priorities should be set by an orderly *mode-neutral* priority list established by *mode-neutral* cost-benefit analysis (which takes into account the hard-to-quantify environmental costs etc) [fn1]
A general value statement that ‘first priority should go to roads’ effectively abandons all pretence to rational cost benefit analysis of individual projects. This is unlikely to be a recipe for effective use of limited public money.
footnote 1: allowing for the fact that some projects may deliberately be regarded as a package relating to extraneous goals, and this may vary the priority suggested by a strict one-by-one priority list. For example, if society values higher level goals like ‘reducing motor vehicle pollution’ or ‘reducing transport disadvantage’ or ‘reducing the urban ugliness created by roads’, it’s fair to say that ‘creating a quality public transport network’ is a single high level project, directed at those goals, which may bump up the priority of all the components.
Fair comment Patrick. I guess every city/economy would like to crack the code for better use of transport assets. In the UK a few years ago they had a hair brained idea to charge rail users more off peak because they got a guaranteed seat. I appreciate the comments above about the conveineiance of working in the CBD vrs working from home on the net but if we could shift even 20% of movement away from peak commuter times then all those assets would be better utilised. Do all office workers need to be on site? Do all office works need to work 8-5? At the moment the answer is probably yes because it’s human nature to be lazy but just imagine what a difference it would make if we all coul be motivated or trusted to work remote from home.
“I appreciate the comments above about the conveineiance of working in the CBD vrs working from home on the net but if we could shift even 20% of movement away from peak commuter times then all those assets would be better utilised”
Sounds like ‘forcing’ to me…. why not just meet that demand as effectively as possible?; it doesn’t seem to be going away, in fact it is increasing, consistently throughout the world. In other words I doubt it can be done. Hell we’ve spent 60 years subsidising the dispersed city model with motorways and business parks and suburbia and that hasn’t done it in, and has just proved more expensive as then people need to move between all these centres for transactions and delivery, no matter how good telecoms have got…? It’s a surprise in many ways, it certainly must be to all those advocates of this model, those constantly predicting the demise of the city…..
Auckland, in my view, can have the best of both worlds if me invest a little better for it: Leafy suburbs with vibrant mixed use metro centres plus a dynamic and intensive City Centre. Compact and exciting centre and pleasant and civilised living. But we need to link those two parts with additional systems to achieve it.
Yes. The links are the key part. We also need to invest in rebuilding our suburbs into more than just a place of houses, like we used to have, with town centres, walkability, public amenities. Te Atatu South is an example of this where the sewer that connects Henderson to the motorway via Edmonton Rd, has left a community divided. Added to that is the closing of the local library.
It’s a bit more involved than that. Humans are also social beings and the interaction with others is good for problem solving, creativity etc. I don’t see it as an all or nothing issue, more that companies need to find the balance between productivity and team work.
Could we shift people to working from home, even if one day a week. Sure it could happen but is unlikely. My wife who works for a bank is able to work from home if she wants and every now and then she does that but while she can get work done. However it also drives her nuts as she misses out on the social interaction and she finds it much harder when having to deal with issues that involve others i.e. if it is a single task that she doesn’t need to involve anyone else in then she can do it fine but as soon as others are involved it becomes impossible.
Companies shouldn’t care about social issues. Companies exist to make profits for shareholders. That may not sound fluffy but it’s the reality.
Well for many companies they can be often be more profitable by caring about social issues and their staff as among other things it can be used for marketing. Also in terms of staff, most businesses these days realise that looking after staff is important and in jobs in particular where there is a lot of competition to get the best staff having a good working environment and attitude to social issues can help businesses to compete. This is especially so in jobs that exist in the city centre.
That might be the case in the oil speculation industry, but not in my company. Shareholder profit isn’t a main driver for us, but social responsibility and contributing to society is. That allows us to attract passionate staff who really care about what they are doing. Focus on profit and you get staff who only care about making money, they last a couple of years before jumping ship or becoming disillusioned and burning out. Focus on the outcomes and you get people who are committed to doing the best thing and going the extra mile to achieve it.
Knowing the board of directors get an extra big dividend next quarter doesn’t motivate workers to excel, but creating a better place for their children does. Motivate people with money and they’ll do just enough to not get fired.
Phil you answer your question: Clearly there is no competitive advantage for companies in forcing, asking, offering staff to work from home. Otherwise they’d be doing it to a significant degree.
Furthermore why do companies keep leasing the most expensive space in the centre of cities all over the world…. Out of kindness?
Oh god. The whole “working from home will make a difference”. Anything to avoid spending on PT, eh?
I work for a global professional services firm. None of our 300 offices see any value in this. Crucially, few of my colleagues do either. Nor our customers. firms like ours crave inner city prime real estate for offices, close to PT links. You can see one of our competitor’s signs on one of the new buildings at Britomart. People who claim it’s more optimal to be in a business park on the fringes or work in isolation at home once a week know nothing of business, are being disingenuous, or both.
Give it up.
Yeah, if you completely ignore that knowledge based business is based almost entirely around high rates of intra, and inter company communication, which is far more effective face to face then your arguments have merit.
Or the fact that you think that we should only invest in roads?
So tell me, by the way. You work in the stock market right? Where are say HSBC’s offices, or JP Morgan, or any large consulting firm? Or the firm that you work for? The answer to all of those questions is in a dense centre well connected to PT. No matter how smart the staff, they still know that density is good for the company.
Just a couple of points Auckland is the 15th most congested not 17th. Also the speed vs flow graph does not seem right. The throughput of motorway lanes are 2000 cars per hour (eg apply the 2 sec rule following distance over an hour at 100km to get 1800). In fact that graph seems more like a throughput calc for 50km residential streets.
It doesn’t really matter as the rankings are bogus.
And yes the graph is a throughput graph, in short you can get more vehicles through a motorway system if you don’t insist they all have to travel at 100km/kh