As discussed in this recent post, public transport patronage in Auckland grew at an annualised rate of 9% last month. This growth was led by the rapid transit network (rail and busways), but underpinned by solid growth across the rest of the network.

While this is obviously a positive result, I found myself pondering the question of just how good is it?

One way of answering this question is to place the recent patronage growth within a historical context. In the figure below I’ve plotted annual PT patronage growth from 1921 to the present (NB: I’ve excluded a couple of outliers). The red line on the right shows what would happen if the current annualised rate of 9% holds for the whole financial year.

Annualised PT Grpwth

On this basis I’d conclude:

  1. In the last 20 years, Auckland’s patronage growth has ranged from -2% to +11% with an average of 4-5% p.a; and
  2. In this context, patronage growth of 9% p.a. is at the upper end of what one might expect, but not completely unprecedented.

In my experience, people who doubt the strengths of Auckland’s PT renaissance tend to fall back on some common refrains when presented with such data.

The first refrain is that Auckland’s public transport is starting from a low base. This argument observes that our current high annualised growth is being occurring from a low baseline level of PT usage. This comment has some merit; Auckland does indeed have a low base of PT use, especially compared to many cities and/or levels of private vehicle use. But this argument is also rather disingenuous for two reasons.

The first reason is that PT patronage is high in the places and at the times when it matters the most. Screenline surveys, for example, show that approximately 50% of peak motorised trips into the city centre are on PT. Similarly, data shows that at peak times almost 13,000 passengers are travelling by train. And that’s just rail – you need to multiply that by a factor of approximately 5 to get an indication of total peak travel on PT. Yes that’s right – at peak times approximately 65,000 people are travelling by PT. To shift that many people by private vehicles we’d need the equivalent of 30 additional lanes of motorway. By extension, the fact private vehicles are used for most travel across the rest of the day and week is not evidence which can be used to downplay PT’s transport contribution. 

The second reason is that with growth rates of 5-10% p.a., low levels of demand can quickly become quite large. That is, if Auckland’s PT patronage grows at circa 9% for ten years then twice as many journeys will be undertaken by PT as currently. Experience also suggests that in a transport and land use context growth rates of 5-10% are actually relatively high. If we consider data from the Auckland Harbour Bridge (AHB), for example, then you’ll find the highest recorded annual growth rate in vehicle traffic was approximately 16%. That’s right: Even a transport project as transformational as the AHB didn’t hit annual growth rates above 16%. What the AHB did achieve, however, was to sustain high-moderate levels of growth for a very long time (approximately 30-40 years). That’s how it became the critical piece of infrastructure that we know today.

The second refrain is that Auckland’s PT patronage growth is being driven largely by population growth. Again there are several factors that do not support this perspective.

The first reason is fairly obvious. That is, Auckland’s population is growing at only 1-2% p.a. As such, while population growth explains approximately one-half of the growth in PT patronage, it does not explain the balance. We can show this by calculating PT trips per capita p.a., as illustrated below.

PT trips per capita

This shows PT trips per capita p.a. growing by a touch over 2% p.a. since hitting a low point in the mid-1990s. Another way of putting this is that the average Aucklander is now using PT 50% more than the average Aucklander was 20 years ago.

There is one more reason why Auckland’s current rates of PT growth may be rather special: In the last 5 years vehicle travel per capita has fallen by 23%. I’m personally fairly optimistic this decline will be sustained for a while yet, especially if Auckland accepts the need for the city to intensify (and subsequently removes density controls).

Vehicle trips per capita

This graph also makes it clear, however, that the average Aucklanders makes approximately 1,800 vehicle trips p.a. compared to only 50 trips by PT. So even while I am a believer of the ability for PT to contribute to meeting big chunks of travel demands in key locations and key times, we shouldn’t over-estimate its importance either.

One thing is relatively clear, however: PT patronage in Auckland has been on the rise for over two decades. In my opinion the job is only half-done: If PT is to rise to real prominence in Auckkand, then we’ll need to sustain current rates of growth for a good decade. This would place Auckland’s PT use per capita on par with South East Queensland’s (Brisbane) levels of usage. I think a combination of electrification, integrated ticketing, the New Network, and the CRL will get us to a respectable level of PT usage.

It is, however, what I call the “next round” of PT investments which will get Auckland to a point where it challenges the likes of Melbourne and Sydney, and perhaps rightly lays claim to being the “world’s most livable city”. The sorts of projects in the next round include light rail, SH16 rapid transit corridor, and major city centre bus infrastructure.

But for now let’s just enjoy the moment: Public transport in Auckland is doing pretty well; long may this continue.

P.s. And thanks to all the people who have worked hard over the last two decades to help Auckland get to this point. You know who you are …

Share this

33 comments

    1. A bit too much autocorrelation I reckon (which would make sense from periods of investment and non-investment).

  1. Great to see! This will only grow with more bus lanes etc, integrated ticketing and more EMU’s. One thing that would be fairly simple to do would be to change the law to give buses priority (as in Sydney) e.g cars have to give way to buses that are pulling out of a bus stop. This would probably save about 3-4 mins on each bus route (30 mins or so each day which is enough perhaps for an extra trip making the system more efficient

  2. Growth can also become self fulfilling at a certain level. Go back 10 years and no one caught a bus on a Sunday night – why -because there were none. As demand grows, supply can also increase, not just in peak times but in off peak when alot of those 2000 vehicle trips pa are made.

    Auckland Transports job is to ensure that this isn’t a chicken and egg problem. It needs to fun increased hours and frequency of trips in the short term while passenger numbers build.

    AT also needs to ensure there is enough capacity at peak times. Every year we have issues in March – why dont they ensure operators increase service frequencies in January each year in preparation. It may cost a bit in the short term but in the long term, it will be self funding.

    1. Not really self funding if it isn’t profitable in the short and long term. Operators don’t have enough buses to add more services at peak times. To pay for new buses you need to borrow money and turn a profit on top of paying off the borrowings. If it were profitable to do this, operators would be bringing in more buses already. But at some point, more buses means less profit per bus and thus not worth the investment.

      1. Not profitable short term so AT has to come to the party, to some extent. Long term, it should be profitable (50% fare box recovery or whatever the goal is) or you reduce the service.

        In a short term thinking way, Operators would prefer to run overflowing buses and even leave people behind (as long as it isn’t to many) as that will bring in about the same revenue but at less cost that putting another bus on. At needs to fund (in part) during the period when the additional bus is actually giving a lower level of profitability. The hard bit is to get the balance right as you dont want to fully fund operators during the early period as all businesses expect to have some impact during periods of high growth.

        But if it means 5 new buses are purchased 6 months earlier to arrive in January rather than June, surely a little bit of extra funding would be beneficial to the network, and passengers as a whole. Or for new offpeak services, if it covers the opex costs (eg. driver and fuel) so that the fleet already owned is utilised more – I am sure the operators would wear the additional maintenance cost for a future revenue stream.

  3. So the peak traffic growth rate on the Harbour Bridge was 16%. Latest figure for the rail network, annualised to Jan 2015, is 20%. That shows just how powerful it is, and how what we build; grows.

    1. Yes and 19% does it in four. Rapid Transit looks heading for that in AK. Rail, for example, from 10m annual trips in 2013 to 20m in 2017?
      Last month it hit 13m, we’ll get to 14m maybe in July.

  4. A success story no doubt, just started. Not just build, but priority of what we have already built. A hell of a lot of tarmac width which has the wrong balance or strategic fit right now. The whole network has 60 years of car bias. Best we fix that pronto so all modes flowing then see what happens when car bias not there. Could be a shock and maybe congestion not as big a problem as we thought.

  5. I wonder what 100% bus priority and full lane where possible would do to the graph instead of 1 or so %.

    1. This bus priority and full lane where possible would help emergency services. Ambulance, Police, Fire Trucks. I wander how they find the network service right now and how many fatal cases have been too late by 10 minutes? Or we could fix that, or the mayor could say do it and fix all up Road Maintenance and throw in seperated cycling while your at it.

    2. Team talk after directive all road maintenance sectors AT, NZTA. We are going to make all your kids able to cycle to school, we are going to make bus and emergency services go full speed, we are going to make it better for PEDs. If we finish implementation phase in 3 weeks Len will.put $100k on bar in downtown but you must take PT home. One week late $30k. My money is on the $100k.

  6. 30-1 is a tremendously high ratio. I think we’ll see it move closer to 20-1 shortly, as we the effects of reversing decades of neglect.

    We will also need a great number more buses and trains simply to keep up with this.

  7. “Auckland’s public transport is starting from a low base”, is such a strange argument against PT investment – particularly seeing as there’s such tremendous room for growth in Auckland. Imagine listening to this conversation:

    “I started my own company last year from scratch, and now it’s worth $5 million. There’s heaps more room for growth, too!”.

    “Yeah, but you started from a low base, so that growth is illegitimate.”

    As you say, completely disingenuous.

  8. I just hope the demand is met better then it has better than it has been so far. As some people might be turned off by the crowded standing capacity services and/or missing their service all together due to it being full. NZBus putting ADL’s on crowded services while putting an aggregated bus on a near empty service is mind boggling to say the least.

    I think 233/258/267/274/277 are way to crowded and AT needs to make a decision on either Light Rail or Double Decks as soon as possible. Te Atatu Peninsula buses also need some sort of plan soon, NW Busway should help, it will also mean people of Massey/Westgate/Hobsonville/Kumeu/Huapai/Waimauku/Helensville can actually have a decent PT service.

    1. The worst possible time, but of course that is what you meant. You are so desperate to stop this madness of people using PT! Where will it all end? Won’t someone think of the poor wee cars.
      How galling for you.

        1. “..nothing short of a personal attack”. Oh please…

          We have congestion on our roads. Time to increase road user charges to mitigate the subsidies given to drivers, and particularly, trucking companies.

        2. As long as we are consistent and also increase fuel taxes because of the demand on the Roading network

  9. At the moment I am finding the time it takes to catch a bus during peak times to be utterly ridiculous. I catch a bus from Mt Eden Road to Britomart and on Monday had to wait 50mins for a bus that had capacity for more passengers (between 10-15 went past full). There was around 20 people left at my bus stop by the time I caught one, and another 20 or so down the road further. Surely there could be some buses that start partway through the route to pick up the stranded passengers left at the second half of the route for very long periods of time. It is issues like this that put people off public transport – there were several people at my stop who were distressed about being late for work, and some even gave up and went back home!

    1. Yikes! I was passed by 3 buses while going to the city centre at around 9:45, and I thought I had it bad. 10-15 full buses is just ridiculous.

      Perhaps time to break out the bicycle? 😉

  10. If sustained, compounding 9% growth from 75m at year to end Dec 2014 leads to 100m in 2018. Some 125m at end 2020, and 190m in 2025.

    Note the RLTP is not expecting anything like this, so I guess it can’t happen, there just won’t be the trains, buses, and boats there for these numbers to happen.

    The RLTP predicts 100m trips by 2025. It’s pretty clear they’re dreaming. It’ll be 100m well before 2020, if there’s capacity. 20m on rail and 80m on the rest sometime around 2018.

    In a quickly growing demand situation supply is demand. Which is to say demand is not able to be fully realised as it is capped by supply. Are we seeing that already, with daily reports of people being left by the side of the road or on platforms due to insufficient capacity?

    1. No one has even considered a maximised bus lane wherever possible and advance detection loops full scale motorway, highway and all main roads if possible. Gates open 100% scenario vs only 1% now. Plus network change , and busways if 1m spare for seperation ,barriets if width available. Believe quite a lot can be achieved if Road Maint overrides based on Network problems. I’ve seen maximum velocity you would all be surprised what can be accomplished if on a mission with full artillery.

  11. Figure 1 point 2
    Math isn’t my strong point, but annualised growth of 9% should be divided by 70 right?
    70/9 = c.7.5 years to double patronage?

    20% 3.5 years, 10% 7 years??

    1. yes, I was speaking approximately. The 9% figure is a current rolling annual growth – not a final FY figure. I was a bit conservative and assumed the final figure would drop a bit. Mainly because the outstanding performance to date is partly driven by reduced rail shutdown over summer, which is a positive effect that will dilute over time as the year rolls on.

Leave a Reply

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