Einstein

2011 saw the release of a study led by Ian Wallis Associates into Auckland’s public transport performance. It is a sober and restrained report that simply sets out to describe the performance of Auckland’s PT systems on comparative terms with a range of not dissimilar cities around the region. A very useful exercise, because while no two cities are identical, all cities face similar tradeoffs and pressures and much can be learned by studying the successes and failures of other places. The whole document is here.

The cities selected for the study are all in anglophone nations around the Pacific from Australia, the US, Canada, and New Zealand, with Auckland right in the middle in terms of size. And as summarised by Mathew Dearnaley in the Herald at the time, it showed Auckland to be the dunce of the class by pretty much every metric. Although the article is called Auckland in last place for public transport use it’s clear that the headline it would have reflected the report’s findings more accurately if the paper had simply said; Auckland in last place for public transport. Because it showed that the low uptake of public transport in Auckland cannot be separated from the low quality, slow, infrequent, and expensive services available.

Here’s the uptake overview:

Comparator cities

So it’s clear that population alone is no determinant of PT uptake. If it isn’t the size of the city what is it? Various people have their pet theories, some like to claim various unfixable emotional factors are at work, like our apparently ‘car-loving’ culture, though is it credible that we have a more intense passion for cars than Americans or Australians? The homes of Bathurst and the Indy 500? Others claim that the geography of this quite long and harbour constrained city somehow suits road building and driving over bus, train, and ferry use. A quixotic claim especially when compared to the flat and sprawling cities of the American West which much more easily allow space for both wide roads and endless dispersal in every direction. Another popular claim is that Auckland isn’t dense enough to support much Transit use. Yet it is considerably denser than all but the biggest cities on the list.

So what does the study say is the reason for Auckland’s outlying performance?

It considers service quantity [PT kms per capita], quality [including speed, reliability, comfort, safety, etc] and cost both for the passenger and society, and easy of use [payment systems]. Along with other issues such as mode interoperability, and land-use/transit integration. And all at considerable depth. The report found that Auckland’s PT services are poor, often with the very worst performance by all of these factors and this is the main driver of our low uptake.

And happily some of the things that stand out in the report are well on the way to being addressed. Here, for example is what it says about fares:

Fares and ticketting Benchmark Study

The HOP card is no doubt a huge improvement and has enabled some fare cost improvement. And we can expect more to be done in this area soon, we are told, especially for off peak fares. Additionally the integration of fares is still to come [zone charging].

Here’s what it says about service quantity and quality:

Service qual. Benchmark Study

Oh dear.

Yet there is one thing that the report returns to on a number of occasions that perhaps best captures what’s wrong with Auckland, and offers a fast track to improvement. And, even at this early stage, gives us a way of checking the theory against results in the real world:

Rapid Transit benchmark study

Right, so perhaps the biggest problem with Auckland’s PT system is simply the lack of enough true Rapid Transit routes and services. To qualify as true Rapid Transit it is generally accepted that along with the definition above, a separate right of way, the services must also offer a ‘turn up and go’ frequency, at least at the busiest sections of the lines. And that this is generally considered to mean a service at least every ten minutes, but ideally even more frequent than that.

In Auckland we only have the Rail Network and the Northern Busway that qualify as using separate right of ways, and the busway for only 41% of its route. At least the frequencies on the Busway are often very high, where as on the Rail Network they only make it to ten minute frequencies for the busiest few hours of the day. So to say that Auckland has any real high quality Rapid Transit services even now is a bit of a stretch. However these services have been improving in the three years since the report was released, and will continue to do so in the near future with the roll out of the new trains and higher frequencies on the Rail Network, and more Bus lanes on the North Shore routes especially at the city end of their runs.

Here is a map with a fairly generous description of our current or at least improving Rapid Transit Network:

CFN 2015

Even though it is only three years since the report was released, and there is much more to come, there have been improvements, so we can ask; how have the public responded to the improvements to date?

Below are the latest Ridership numbers from Auckland Transport, for August 2014:

August 2014 Ridership

SOI: Statement Of Intent, AT’s expectations or hopes. NEX: Northern Express.

So the chart above, showing our most ‘Rapid’ services, Rail and the NEX, are clearly attracting more and more users out of all proportion with the rest, and way above Auckland Transport’s expectations or hopes as expressed by the SOI, is a pretty good indication that both the report authors were right, Auckland is crying out for more Rapid Transit services and routes, and, at least in this case, Einstein was wrong: Practice does indeed seem to be baring out the Theory.

And from here we can clearly expect this rise in uptake to continue, if not actually increase, as the few Rapid Transit routes we have now are going to continue to get service improvements. And 19% increases, if sustained, amount to a doubling in only four years! Rail ridership was around 10 million a year ago, so it could be approaching 20 mil by mid 2017, if this rate of growth is sustained.

But this also means we can clearly expect any well planned investment in extensions to the Rail Network [eg CRL] or additional busways [eg North Western] to also be rewarded with over the odds increases in use. Aucklanders love quality, and give them high quality PT and they will use it.

Furthermore, given that these numbers are in response to only partial improvements even extending on-street bus lanes for regular bus services looks highly likely to be meet with accelerated ridership growth. I think it is pretty clear that Auckland Transport, NZTA, MoT, and Auckland Council can be confident that any substantive quality, frequency, and right-of-way improvement to PT in Auckland will be rewarded with uptake.

Given that Auckland’s PT use is advancing ahead of population growth [unlike the driving stats] I believe we have already improved that poor number up top to 47 trips per person per year. So there’s still plenty of room for growth even to catch up with the next city on the list. So perhaps it’s time to formally update that report too?

Imagine just how well a full city wide network of Rapid Transit would be used? Clearly Auckland is ready for it:

CFN 2030 South-Grafton

Share this

55 comments

  1. Good post. The under-developed nature of Auckland’s PT system, especially the rapid transit network, means that there should be massive scope for ongoing growth that provides excellent returns on the investment.

    By contrast, the motorway network will soon be completed with Waterview, meaning any further investment would have a very marginal impact.

  2. Until a few years ago, there used to be express times on the trains, including to Pukekohe. Can’t remember when they got rid of them, but the current 1644 evening to Pukekohe (which I usually take, since AT broke the through ‘bus service to Pukekohe) is timetabled to an hour and 12 minutes. If they did an express with fewer stops, I don’t know if it would shave much off that – some, at least, I should think. With having to get to Britomart reliably, I leave my desk at 4:10, get home about 5:55 – an hour and three quarters. It would be nice if they could somehow do better than that. Maybe not possible, I suppose.

    jj

    1. Not impossible, but difficult with our reluctance to invest in track infrastructure. I have seen post EMU running patterns with a small number of limited stopping services especially on the longest route south. They were much easier to run in the past when, frankly, there were so few services that conflicts were no problem.

      Things that would help make it happen for your journey include electrification to Puke, so no change at Papakura, the third main on the NMIT, as there are increasing numbers of freighters on the tracks now too, and, in a perfect world, that third main taken all the way to the port.

      1. In terms of “express” trains, could it work to have some trains with passengers from/to Papakura/Pukekohe skip stops where an Onehunga line train will collect/drop passengers just behind it – say only stopping at Ellerslie, Newmarket, Britomart(/CRL) after Otahuhu?

        Could help speed up the longer distance trains and spread the load…

        1. I was trying to think of a pattern that wouldn’t need extra track(s) for express trains to pass all-stoppers nor get mixed up with freight trains – fitting the current network layout so achievable sooner rather than later.

          Freight-heavy track is the North Island Main Trunk (in an Auckland metro context, that’s the “Eastern” line from Britomart around the waterfront and Panmure, then the “Southern” line continuing on to and past Papakura). Lots of trains and lots of freight trains make expresses very difficult. There’s fewer freight movements on the Penrose-Newmarket section and with the Onehunga line trains coming in behind them from Penrose, this seems the easiest place to shave a few minutes off times from some trains coming in from Papakura (with passengers from Pukekohe) without it bumping into whatever train is in front.

        2. Actually it would have worked out fine if it weren’t for west line services that still tie up platforms for several minutes at a time at Newmarket – meaning trains that express ahead would probably not have a Newmarket slot available, so lose their gained time again. Post-CRL I’m not sure – but imagine by then that south frequencies will probably become too high for express running.

  3. Your August graph clearly indicates the trends and they are stunning. We really do need the fastest possible action on the City Rail Link…………………… Wake up NZTA

    1. I think the policy setting of excluding rail funding from the NZTA scope is more of an issue. The question I ask is why are we getting the behaviour we’re noticing and is there anything we could change to make it better.

  4. Great post. The importance of Rapid Transit needs to be more widely published. AT need to stop cancelling rail over summer holidays.

    1. “AT need to stop cancelling rail over summer holidays.”

      Amen to that.

      Aside from the inconvenience (and the implied attitude towards customer service), there’s a few percent uptick available just by running trains through January.

    2. I think it is better this summer with one week on wider network, and a second week on the Western. No idea why need to close Western with electrification finished. Though bigger issue is Southern/Eastern closed south of Sylvia Park for 2 weekends in December. Miss out on lots of Xmas shopping trips when roads very busy.

  5. Of course private transport is better than public given that you can go where you want when you want in your private car. Car’s give you more freedom and choice, there is no way public transport can compete with that. Which is why in some cities we see the control freaky policies of public transport advocates trying to artificially make private transport less attractive (tolls, restricted roads, extra taxes, etc.). Let’s hope we don’t see those sort of people getting there way in Auckland.

    1. That’s great Mark: let me sum up your post for you. “Wah Wah, I want to drive everywhere, any time I want without any restrictions. It’s my right as a New Zealander, etc. etc.”
      “Car’s give you ” – you have left out a word here; “car’s what??
      I agree with you that it would be great if we had no “artificially” mandated exceptions to transport; such as heavily subsidised roads and the freedom to pollute my air without penalty.
      And it is “their” way not “there”. The grammatical errors make your rant barely comprehensible.

    2. I can go where I want when I want by car? So what if I want to drive over the harbour bridge at 8am? Takes an hour or more. No way public transport can compete? Busway takes twenty minutes, pretty sure that counts as competing.

      Remind me again how sitting in traffic for forty extra minutes is freedom and choice? Not much choice or freedown when you’re stuck in the slow lane.

    3. Mark of course you’re quite right about the advantages of point to point travel by car, all other things being equal, and we can see this best when heading from the farm to the general store; no way you’re going to get a Transit service to serve that kind of journey nearly as well. However, in cities all across the world, all other things are not equal. In particular it is the spatial inefficiency of cars to move people at quantity that quickly comes to a head in urban areas. Here is the famous i405 in California:

      This is the problem that is addressed by Transit systems in almost every single city on the planet, many much smaller and more dispersed than Auckland.

    4. Welcome to the 2010s, Mark.

      You have obviously travelled in a time machine from 1995 when people still believed such rubbish and before all those things you are condemning were shown to actually make living in cities better.

      Here’s a shock for you – the US has a black President now. I know, who would have thought!

    5. Look at the vitriol – just because someone has a different point of view to you. All showing your true colours.

      Mark does have a partial point – travel outside of peak times in Auckland is far more convenient by car. Why choose to take a mode that is slower when you dont have too?

      It is still an important social service for the young and old outside of those times

      1. Realist I think you’re being a bit precious here. Mark implied people who supported better PT were “control freaky” advocates. For which case it seems only fair he gets beaten back a little. Most of the other comments were very respectful even if they disagreed.

      2. Really, even when I had a car I would catch the bus to uni no matter what time I went. PT was a more efficient solution in both time and money.

      3. “A service for the young and old”.

        And you show your true colours…

        you’d be laughed at in any other successful city in the world with view like that.

        1. Just because someone “laughs at your opinion” doesn’t really mean anything other than perhaps an indication of that person’s arrogance.

          Firstly – is success only measured based on a successful public transport system. That is a very narrow viewpoint of success.
          Secondly – Even with the best of intentions, large areas of Auckland will remain remote from frequent public transport and in those areas PT outside of peak will be a social service for young and old people, those who don’t own a car, and those who use PT for ideological reasons.

          And let me be quite clear – I am not anti public transport. I just think people need to take off the rose tinted glasses and acknowledge where PT has its limitations.

        2. Who on earth is wearing those rose tinted glasses? Given that practically everyone here uses PT we are sharply aware of its limitations.

  6. Can’t wait for the Nth-Western to get a bus lane from Westgate, where the bus terminal will be. Upper Harbour people have suffered with abominable service for years. A 20 minute car ride to town takes two hours on a morning bus. Can you imagine?
    Just hoping there’s park and ride or feeder buses coming from surrounding suburbs or how do we get there?
    Thanks for all your efforts and ideas. They’re grand.

    1. AT has already designed and developed the feeder bus network across the Upper Harbour, specifically to connect in to Westgate. Keep an eye out for consultation for those neighbourhoods end of this year, start of next year.

      Meanwhile NZTA is building the bus lanes on SH16 as we speak. Won’t be long before there is a biiig improvement.

      1. NZTA are building bus shoulders (completion Dec 2016), not bus lanes, but it’s good that they will be extended up the east-facing ramps at Te Atatu. Can’t find any info on whether the same will happen at Lincoln, or from Royal Rd or Westgate.

        1. They’re a bit more than bus shoulders, they are bus lanes that get used as shoulders. Difference is the the greater width, speed and quality of pavement. However you’re point about the interchanges still stands, will be interesting to see what is proposed, and whether the lanes will peter out and force merging at every set of ramsp.

  7. How did Ian select the cities for his study? A random sample of anglophone cities or Auckland plus 13 cities that had higher PT use? If it is the latter then the conclusion that Auckland has the lowest uptake was part of the assumption. I think that is called begging the question.

    1. Does it look like wildly crazy list? Would you prefer New York and LA, or Shanghai and Vienna, say, more comparable? Isn’t going for culturally not dissimilar places quite reasonable? And similar scale too.

      What cities would you add or subtract?

      1. Well why not Jacksonville, Austin, Dallas, San Diego, San Antonio, San Jose, El Paso, Fort Worth, Fort Lauderdale, Charlotte, Detroit and Indianapolis and Christchurch for a different 13.

        1. Christchurch cos earthquakes; distorting data. Inland plains cities because their geography is radically different; in particular facilitating very wide roads and easy dispersal in every direction. But nice list of US cities with zero to appalling transit services. The result would I guess be different but the same; cities that have crap Transit services will exhibit low ridership levels. And the report could then be called: ‘Race to the Bottom: Auckland PT services compared with US cities with the lowest standards.’

        2. So only cities from the Southern states of America that are renowned for having rubbish public transport? Yeah that sounds like a much more balanced list – well done.

          I think the point is to show how far we are behind cities with good public transport – not make excuses for how crap it is. Do you think those cities you list are great templates for creating good urban environments?

        3. No I don’t think that I am just illustrating my point that if you select a bunch of cities you consider do something better then concluding Auckland is the worst of that group is a weak conclusion. Kind of like watching a magician stuff a rabbit into his hat then pull it out again and saying Ta Daa!

        4. There is very good reason to include Sydney despite it’s size; culturally close, runs the same portfolio of transit systems: trains, ferries, and buses, and has a comparable geography and history; a pacific harbour city with with which we share a past and a whole bunch of citizens! The South Florida Metropolitan Area that you refer to is more than a little different, but sure you think we should benchmark against that? Fine, but then any arguments also choosing Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Tokyo fall away too….

        5. Peer cities Mfwic. Similar size, shape, density, wealth, urban form. About as much point in comparing Auckland to Fort Lauderdale as Auckalnd and Hong Kong, Sao Paulo, Zurich etc.

        6. Yes you are right as Fort Lauderdale has 5.7 million. A bit like Sydney in the original list with 5.5mill.

        7. I didn’t actually say anything about population. Ft Lauderdale is mega sprawl of dead ends built on a drained swamp, with a street topography that basically makes transit and walking impossible. It’s a huge area contiguous with Miami and various smaller municipalities covering an area fifteen times the size of Auckland.

          Comparing Auckland and Ft Lauderdale would be a purely academic exercise with no practical use except identifying how different they are. They certainly aren’t peer cities.

        8. These US cities have had the unique legacy of the Interstate Highway network building freeways in a multitude of directions from each of these cities, almost fully paid for by Federal gas taxes. Some additional freeways were funded by State gas taxes, both at a time when gas was so cheap that the tax take was hardly noticed. This infrastructure allowed these cities to sprawl outward on these highly subsidised freeways. These circumstances only persisted during the late 1950’s and the 1960’s, and since then local government has had to make a much larger contribution to freeway construction and widening. Globally they are an aberration. Outside the Anglophone world how many cities have a similar degree of car dominance ?

          What happens in the absence of subsidies public transport ? Indonesia is a good case in point, because apart from recent PT investment in Jakarta by the provincial government, provision of public transport has been left to the private sector without subsidisation. The market-based “solution” is low powered motorcycles. These outsell cars 10 to 1, partly because they don’t get caught in the same gridlock as larger vehicles. Services such as shops are dispersed, and there are there are few pedestrian areas. Even high school students normally ride motorcycles to school. It is a space-efficient and fuel-efficient solution. But there can be some horrific accidents.

    2. It is good choice as they are cities populated with people like us, and of a similar age. European cities started laying down railway tracks before many of these cities were settled, so cannot be compared.

  8. Isn’t it time that North Shore resident users of NEX insisted that the 41% was lifted to 100%; making the centre lanes on the Harbour Bridge “bus only” lanes during peak. And why the centre lanes? Simple, the centre lanes are where the fastest vehicles travel and as bus only lanes that’s what will be travelling fastest; buses and the transit riders. After all the deserve a benefit for taking a hit for the rest of us and getting out of their “Private Transport is Better Car”.
    Putting shoulder transit lanes in as proposed for the North Western is like recommending undertaking as the best way to pass slower vehicles – madness.

  9. Mr Plod,
    Currently the Harbour Bridge does not slow buses significantly on the city journey as there is 5 lanes and similar from there to the city.

    If the car travelling public is to be annoyed there is more sense in reconfiguring say Taharoto and Fred Thomas to speed bus movement in peaks -no that doesn’t mean widening!

    1. I’m looking forward to seeing the North Shore New Network consultation – hoping Fred Thomas will be taken advantage of to fix up Takapuna services. The roller-coaster that is Burns/Auburn with its steep dip and a squillion roundabouts is literally nauseating – especially if trying to do work while travelling, if I have my laptop out on that section I have to look away from it going through there to avoid feeling sick.

  10. In Australia the former Treausury Secretary Ken Henry had been railing against ‘mercantilism, which two hundred years ago meant monarchs obsessing over how much gold their countries were getting, but now means politicians banging on about the value of exports ie essentially the same thing.

    There is no merit in exports, that’s why they call it balance of payments, because it balances. If the private sector is spending money, it must have earns it somewhere. If people are importing stuff, then foreigners must have given them green stuff to spend at some point to buy that stuff with. Even borrowing, if done on international markets, is only happening because someone thinks you are a good credit risk.

  11. (Continued)
    Politicians obsession with deficits, debt, exports etc are just the same old, same old that happened two hundred years ago, when the gold obsession was far more literal.

    An economy like HK, widely regarded as a success, thrived on exports, but for much of its time was dirt poor. And for that matter, did it really thrive on exports? They couldn’t even grow enough food to eat or catch enough water from the sky. All their raw materials were imported.

    Really, the only economic game in town is not mercantilism, but productivity. More outputs per input. For a example, more personal productivity from working by not being stuck in traffic jams, and how to get the best value from alleviating the effect of traffic on working people. Like a congestion free network. Focus on that, the rest, whether Fonterra’s milk or some super high value service, will take care of itself.

Leave a Reply

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