October’s patronage results show Aucklanders are continuing to flock to buses and trains. It’s especially true for the rapid transit network which is seeing staggering growth, up over 20% compared to the same month last year. It’s showing that the public really value and are responding to services that have a decent priority so are less affected by congestion. Here are the results
We already knew that rail had passed the 12 million trips in a 12 month period mark earlier in October however it seems the growth continued on strongly with the October figure over 12.1 million trips, an increase of over 200,000 trips compared to the 12 months to the end of September. It’s also the second month in a row and the third month out of the last five months that patronage is up over 20% compared to the same month last year. The real stand outs are the Manukau and Onehunga services which of course are the only two lines so far that have the new electric trains on them. I suspect some of their growth is from existing users at stations served by both old and new trains changing their travel patterns so they can get electric services however there is also likely to be a lot of new users too. Of course the non electric lines are also showing strong growth too.
AT’s figures show that on weekdays, the average number of trips on the rail network has risen from around 38,000 to around 44,000. If you assume two trips per person that means an extra 3,000 people are catching the train a day.
The Northern express is also seeing staggering growth and as I talked about in this post, even counter peak is leaving people behind due to being so busy (it happened to me last night).
Considering there hasn’t been much in the way of additional services put on in the last year this patronage boost must good for farebox recovery.
And it’s not just the Northern Express that’s busy, other buses which provide the bulk of patronage in Auckland are up significantly too even off peak and on weekends.
Not everything is going up though unfortunately, patronage on ferries is down and AT attribute it to “the poor weather conditions throughout October, decreasing the number of noncommuter/tourism related passenger trips“. They say the trips on the contracted services (services except Devonport and Waiheke) were actually up however as the Devonport and Waiheke patronage makes up the bulk of the ferry numbers, decreases from them dragged the result down. Going forward I wonder how much the launch of the new Explore ferry service to Waiheke will affect things – and if they’re included in the patronage figures.
The other disappointment is that cycling numbers were down again too. I wonder if that’s also weather related as the morning peak numbers continue to show an increase in people cycling
Processing...
London following AUK perhaps.. Tfl report that last friday there were 4.5m trips on the tube alone. A new record.
Perhaps an out of place question, but there are a lot of bus trips in relation to trains – are there projections for how many of those are going to be taken up by the train once the new network rolls out, assuming people catching busses now will be instead getting a bus to the train and then training in?
It raises another question, if we’re moving to truly multi-modal (bus -> train -> bus etc) we’ll see a potential doubling (or more) of raw boarding numbers. I know HOP can address this for total ‘trips’ but we end up with breakdowns that are not comparable to existing ones – a pure split in numbers won’t make sense.
Well overall journeys for each mode may well not stay the same proportion (I’d expect rail to go up, doubling, to get closer to the Bus total as PTOM and integrated fares rolls out).
The passenger KMs used by journeys on each mode will alter much more though – with bus dropping off and rail rising rapidly.
This is one reason why AT should start releasing these sorts of figures of mode stats in Passenger KMs – thats what Wellington does for its network and helps you see how the (multi-modal) journeys are being split.
And shows that trains are doing to the rapid long haul stuff as intended.
If we use Perth as a recent example (see this url from commenter Riccardo: http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/NewsandMedia/TransperthPatronage/tabid/218/language/en-AU/Default.aspx)
You will see their mix of Bus v Rail mode share there is about 60% (Bus) v 40% (rail), currently our mode share is about 80%/20% bus v rail), so we have a ways to go, but that is probably where we will end up.
Note: I fully expect train trips to sky-rocket not bus trips plummet. Making that suggested Government target of 20 million rail trips a year by 2020 for CRL to start as now positively antiquated. and it also makes that suggested (by TransportBlog) figure of 20 by 2017 starting to look quite pessimistic as well.
However, who cares how you get from A to B as long as the buses and trains are there when you need them and work with each other and not against as they have done for decades, you won’t care if you “bus, bus, bus” or” bus,train,bus”.
very good point.
Using trip-legs (i.e. boardings) to measure patronage will tend to overstate growth in journeys (some of which involve more than one trip-leg, i.e. a connection between services). This is especially true with HOP, which makes multi-leg journeys much easier.
So you’d expect the growth in patronage to be somewhat overstated. Still impressive though …
Oh dear my article in the new Metro Magazine [go get a copy] now has out of date ridership numbers; they should be higher!
20% Rail and Busway 8% overall; blistering pace
Overcrowding on counterpeak NEX services could be reduced by allowing passengers on the current “Not in service” runs, but making them non-stop end-to-end services, with a name such as “NXX”. If 20% of counterpeak patronage is end-to-end, this could represent a 20% increase in capacity with the only time cost being the time to load ~10 passengers.
good point. More balanced demands/flows will have positive implications for overall operational efficiency by reducing the amount of out-of-service running that is required.
Do AT need a position such as an “events manager”, whose responsibilities include estimating after hours PT demand in collaboration with event organisers, scheduling additional services, and undertaking “ex ante” analyses based on HOP and other data ?
Possibly, but regular longer operating hours at also needed. And will surely come as the peak slots fill and the only opportunities for growth are off peak, weekends, and nights. These services have a very important role to play in supporting more popular services as they give regular hour users confidence that they’ll still be able to get home if their plans change, as well as for shift workers etc…
Re the comment in the post about changing travel patterns to catch the EMU’s – I have done that in the evening, aiming to get to Britomart to catch a Manukau train rather a Papakura one. I assume that there must be a wealth of data in the HOP database that would be able to show quite easily where the growth is occurring i.e. station by station rather than looking at it line by line.
AT have those per-station figures but don’t release them publicly.
However pays to remember that ATs HOP system assigns you to a train (i.e. a “line”) based on the time when you tag on/tag off and assumes you get on (or got off) the train that arrived in the station closest to those times, they don’t *know* for real which train of the many you actually rode on.
e.g. If you tagged on at Ellerslie and tagged of at Newmarket or Britomart, you could have arrived there by either a Southern or Onehunga line train.
Which one they assign you to, is based pretty much on your tag on/tag off times, as I have read it, but it is still an educated guess for some journeys (but not all).
So you tagging on at a station as a chock-full SA from Papakura arrives, at which time you decide, “nah, I’ll wait for the (nicer) EMU thats due in a few minutes”, you will confuse the system somewhat – it may think you rode on the SA, not the EMU.
From December 8 that confusion source on the Eastern Line stations will disappear for all stations north of Westfield and at Manukau as there will be only one line you could travel on to get there.
Having said that you could still legitimately change trains.
e.g. if you travelled on a EMU on the Eastern line and say tagged on at GI, but then got off before Manukau, changed trains to a Papakura bound one and thus tagged off later at Papakura, will the system record it as a trip on the Eastern or Southern Lines (or as both?) and what if you originally tagged on at Henderson, went to BM, hopped the Eastern line EMU there, and tagged off at Papakura.
Lots of ways to get from A to B, I think HOP simply routes you the shortest route for ticketing and statistical purposes, and thus “your mileage may vary”.
You can see lots of vagueness abounds with these numbers when broken out by line.
Now having said that the EMU’s themselves can “count” passengers on board based on some weighing technology in the EMUs to calculate the actual estimate of people on board, whether thats used for anything at all other than allowing train to set acceleration/deceleration rates for the traction engines in the EMU I have no idea. Perhaps someone can comment on that?
The time has come for ferries to get some proper investment. The current fleet of inner harbour vessels is and has been a cobbled together collection of launches picked up here and there and put to work as ferries, the sole exception being the Kea, a purpose built double end inner harbour ferry built in the 80’s. Its the only one that does not have to bugger around turning inside out to dock or to leave a wharf. The Birkenhead ferries that services Northcote for example lose so much time as they manouvre about docking and leaving, especially at Northcote wharf. And furthermore Northcote wharf must be extended. Its dog leg access existence is the last thing an efficient service needs.
And on the subject of trains its obvious that the 57 EMU’s will not be enough if growth continues and it also will hamstring AT if they want to expand services outside of the electrified system, such as north of Swanson and south of Papakura. Electrification outside these areas is truly a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. I think retaining some of the current SA fleet would be very wise especially to give flexibility and additional capacity. And yes I know they are hanging on to the ADL’s that themselves seem to be barely hanging on to life themselves, reliability wise.
Let’s hope the bureaucrats don’t flog off our SA-SD fleet for a cheap buck to South Africa. We need them here in Auckland and around NZ.
Positive news on PT usage jumping again. So different to the growth in car usage at the moment.
maybe.
It may instead be better to:
1. Flog the DMUs;
2. Fund extension of electrified network to Pukekohe (and even further south over time); and
3. Exercise an option with CAF (which I believe they have) to increase their EMU order
Additional EMUs were to be purchased for CRL operations, but were given the flick earlier this year in order to cut costs. I’m not sure how they’re planning on making up for that shortfall. Even if SAs are retained (which I assume some will be), they will not be able to operate inside the CRL tunnel itself. Even so, it does appear that Auckland is going to run a mixed fleet for quite some time.
Who wants those shitty old diesels anyway… sentimentalists can move to Puke if they’re that desperate for the carcinogenic taste of the fumes in their throat. They’ve done a great service for Auckland and as I’ve written here many before could still do the same job of cheaply reviving rail somewhere else now. Christchurch or the Waikato are the obvious places, but we’re firmly in a new and much much better new age in Auckland now.
We will, I’m certain, be ordering more EMUs from CAF within 5 years, but the 57 [39 in the country now] will do for the immediate future, and be even worked harder post CRL… time to look forward with all forms of rail now in Auckland, it seems it’s very hard to let go of the past for some.
And in some ways fair enough: as I say the model that worked in Perth, and then here, can work again elsewhere. It is a shame that Christchurch is not being governed by more open minded people right now; I know they’re there, they just aren’t in control at critical places. The dispersal/congestion issue there is crying out for options and there is an opportunity with these old trains….
What is this obsession with diesel fumes i read over and over? Definitely in the DMU’s but not in the SA’s unless there is some issue or unless you are referring to platform exposure. And if thats the case nearly every bus I travel in sucks in diesel fumes to some extent especially as they get older and God help pedestrians near the back end of a bus or motorists following them.
The SA’s have been paid for by us and cost a fortune to refit and have a lot of life left in them so its an absolute waste to ditch them. I would go as far as saying they are purpose built for the Western Line. The big issue so far pre EMU’s has been lack of capacity in the last few years because I assume the numbers ordered were seen as sufficient for demand and look how far that took us!
They’re far from ideal for the western line as they are heavy and don’t turn as well so with the the curves and grades they help make for a slower trip. ADLs are the fastest over the line but obviously don’t have the capacity needed and are worse in other areas. EMUs should be good out west once they finally start running.
I certainly don’t want to see the shitty old diesels banging around Auckland much longer, but I don’t want to see them leave the country either. I agree with Waspman that it would be a massive waste. I think a number of diesels should be retained at least for emergency backup purposes, and just in case there’s cause for future expansion of the network. Without diesels, not even trials could be undertaken without further electrification.
The SA’s/SD’s cost $200 million, so you don’t want to just flog them off. Ratepayers and NZTA paid for them. An incredible asset to our rail network given we don’t have a huge PT rail development budget.
Jon surely it depends on what we get for them.
Also what’s the cost of keeping them around and to a usable standard. Doubt Kiwirail will want them just sitting in their land for free. Not to mention dealing with keeping them free of graffiti and rust.
Earlier i proposed that Auckland could give them to Christchurch as a gesture of sympathy for their misfortune and so they could the great value that we have had out of them too. I’m still down with that, but that would require ECAN, CERA, NZTA, or who ever else to drop their mode bias and see the value in a city with a true multi-modal transport system.
this is fantastic news. People flocking to services in droves will have two key effects: 1) higher patronage drives higher revenue and thereby freeing up AT’s operating budget for more services and 2) it will strengthen the case for pt capital investment.
Higher passenger counts have not yet resulted in a drop on the PT trip subsidy AT pays for either rail or Bus modes according to the AT statistics report in this month AT Board papers.
The “average” subsidy across all modes is just under the Statement of Intent (SOI) for the 14/15 Fiscal year target of 29 cents (per Passenger km)*, and rail is still stubbornly high at 50 cents a km – despite having some of the EMUs in operation. Rail shows a slight dip in the per-km subsidy this year, but its lost in the statistical “noise” really.
So, if anything AT is having to spend more than budgeted actual $’s to fund all those extra trips, without the seeing a benefit from the reduced running costs of the EMUs.
But yes, more bums on seats means the need for even more investment becomes even more obvious and necessary.
On that point, the Total Patronage figures for October on a 12 month rolling basis are now 1 million trips above the SOI for the 2014/15 Fiscal Year that ends in June 2014, (SOI is just under 74 million) making a mockery of the tame SOI targets – and thats barely 4 months after they were set. Yes we have the slow months of December to Feb coming up, but the annual shutdown will be much shorter than last years and so I fully expect the growth rate to continue. I really do feel for the existing commuters currently facing peak and off-peak services that are simply full to bursting with no sign of relief yet as the biggest PT months are still to come (November and December are always big months for rail patronage growth for instance). But relief will hopefully arrive for Southern and Eastern train users from 8 December.
*AT says this about the Per-KM subsidy:
“PT Subsidy per Passenger Km – the net subsidy per passenger km is calculated by dividing the cost (less fare revenue) of providing PT services by the distance travelled by all passengers.
Total PT subsidy per passenger km in September 2014 was $0.29.”
They’re not funding any extra passenger trips unless they’re adding actual services. Buses and trains cost pretty much the same to run whether empty or full.
Yes but train passengers travel longer trips than bus passengers for about the same fare , hence the higher “per-KM: subsidy.
That aside, with 1/3rd of the rail fleet now EMU’ed and EMUs having half the running costs of the existing diesel units, you’d expect to see a 1/6th drop (1/3rd times 1/2 = 1/6th) in the passenger subsidy for rail, but we don’t yet, hence my comment on subsidy not dropping yet for rail.
Maybe Veolia and Nz bus are pocketing the difference? I ask cause I don’t understand how the thing works
Greg your analysis is incorrect. As Bryce notes, in the short run the marginal cost to AT of additional patronage is effectively zero. That’s true of both bus and rail. In the long run the equation changes because higher demand is usually matched by higher services.
But in general higher than forecast patronage will in result in higher than expected revenue, all other factors being equal. The factors that might not be “equal” include 1) distance traveled; 2) passenger type (i.e. adult versus concession); and 3) ticket type (i.e. HOP versus cash).
If the patronage mix for these factors is different from what AT has assumed when formulating its budgets, then it’s possible for patronage growth to be different from revenue growth. It may be, for example, that the growth in patronage stimulated by HOP has resulted in a decline in the number of cash fares, and therein a reduction in revenue for some journeys (because of the HOP discount).
However you’d expect this revenue loss would be more than made up for by 1) people who switch from cash to HOP making additional journeys and 2) faster bus boarding times due to fewer cash passengers attracting more patronage.
Indeed, and the evidence from the likes of the NEX and other buses suggests a lot of this patronage growth is simply folks starting to fill up counter peak and off peak services that are running anyway. That means more paying passengers on the same-cost-to-run services, so an improvement in subsidy per passenger.
Agree for buses that would be the case, and assuming buses at peak are full as seems is the case.
Then the main patronage growth on buses comes from off-peak and counter peak (and in some case, bigger buses like Double Deckers which have same running costs more or less, but can carry more per journey).
But these offset the running costs with additional fare revenue, which is why the Bus subsidy has been dropping. Same bus runs overall, with more people in them paying more money overall = lower subsidy.
For rail not so much, which indicates that so far the use of EMUs is not showing any operational cost benefits.
Some of that may be hidden cross subsidisation between bus and train journeys as people make more multi-modal journeys from bus to train and revenue is split between the modes (less transfer discount) but as train has higher costs per passenger KM the revenue for the train portion is all eaten up by the costs of delivering those passengers who used only the bus before.
Rail is more expensive to operate because it has high overhead costs – track access for one – buses don’t need to “rent the road” like AT does (plus renting engines to pull the trains, renting drivers who drive them, and employing train managers as well which doubles the staffing costs of each train compared to bus over the same sort of route).
EMUs are supposed to have operating costs half or less of the diesels they replace and AT is using its own drivers for the EMUs rather than “renting them” from KR, EMUs don’t need KR locomotives with their high fuel costs, but they still have the TM – heaven knows why – but anyway.
Even so we should see a reduction in rail costs even as fare revenues rocket courtesy of increased patronage – we see the Eastern line is up 37% this financial year, most of that time has had EMUs operating on it..
Onehunga has EMUs since May, is up 27% this FY – collectively those two lines have carried some 20% of the total rail passenger journeys made this FY.
As AT said, the subsidy is costs less revenue divided by distance. = subsidy per passenger KM.
If the subsidy, if static for rail, and patronage is up, means that either the costs are up too, to match the revenue obtained, the average passenger trip distance is now much longer to offset the revenue and/or the revenue is lower (more kids and students and Gold Card holders travelling on the trains?) or is KR hiking access rates too? or a mixture of all 4.
Also accept as Max said with changeover a lot of short term double costs – but presumably its not AT’s job to train drivers on EMUs for free – unless they are AT employees, if KR are providing EMU drivers then thats presumably at KR’s expense to retrain them in EMUs right? And while Veolia is there in the mix it is piling on costs.
And you won’t see full reduction in costs while diesels remain, but we’re over 6 months into the EMU rollout, so many of the up front costs have been incurred in the last FY not this one, we also should have removed enough diesels and their costs from the rail mix now to start to see a benefit. If not by now, when do we expect to see it – once all Diesels are gone? Once Veolia’s contract is ended? Once AT run the trains themselves?
Or maybe AT is doing some creative accounting with the subsidy numbers it shows the board.
Something isn’t right with rail subsidy figures – I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but I smell a dead rat or two.
AT are currently calling for (international) management to take over the rail operation. Tender notices are out both here and overseas. Hopefully MTR who run the Overground management in London will bid as would be excellent to have some serious customer service focus going on.
As long as you are still running lots of diesels in day to day use, then you can’t have the savings from going all electric. You still have a lot tied up in that, from fuel costs to maintenance facilities and staff. Plus, presumably there’s still a lot of change-over costs at the moment – such as extra training of drivers etc…