There is a rather strange article in the New Zealand Herald today, entitled “Aucklanders stick with cars as best way to travel”. I’m not quite sure how most popular equates to “best”, but that’s not really the issue here. The article is based around a media release by Statistics NZ on the ways in which people get to and from work:
A new analysis of commuting patterns, published yesterday by Statistics NZ, shows that the proportion taking the car to work in the Auckland region rose from 78.4 per cent in 1996 to 78.6 per cent in 2001 and 78.8 per cent in the last Census, in 2006.
Public transport’s share rose in the same period from 6.1 per cent to 6.3 per cent and then 6.4 per cent.
There were slight reductions in the numbers riding bikes and motorbikes, and the number walking to work fell and then rose slightly to end the decade slightly below where they started.
Auckland’s public transport share was puny compared with 13.4 per cent in Wellington, although still slightly better than Christchurch’s 4 per cent.
Well, so what do we really have here? Some three year old statistics that someone at Stats NZ has randomly decided to release to the media gets thrown in as something new. Of course, this kind of data is pretty depressing from the perspective of a public transport advocate, although it’s not really surprising as Auckland’s public transport rennaisance has been particularly significant in the three years since 2006.
Maybe the Herald could undertake some research to see if things have change since 2006? ARTA public transport patronage data certainly suggests there has been a significant change – with public transport ridership at its highest level in decades. Meanwhile, NZTA data suggests that the number of people driving along our state highways has been significantly declining in recent years too. I guess that would be too much work though, it’s easier to write up an article from a media release based on statistics that are three years out of date.
Fortunately, the article actually does go on to provide us with some meaningful information – about the important relationship between employment density and public transport use. The general rule is that the more your employment is centralised (either in the CBD or in various activity nodes) the easier it is for people to use public transport. This is further detailed:
Transport consultant Barry Mein said the dominance of the car reflected a continued dispersal of Auckland’s new jobs. The traditional central business district (CBD) still accounts for a big and growing share of all jobs in the Wellington region, up from 35 per cent in 1996 to 36.5 per cent a decade later.
“Areas with good public transport do have strong CBDs internationally, because traditionally the transport systems were centred on their CBDs.”
In Christchurch the CBD’s share fell from 25.3 per cent to 22 per cent, but remained strong.
But in Auckland, even in 1996, only 12.6 per cent of the region’s jobs were in the CBD, defined as the area between the central motorway loop and the harbour. By 2006, that proportion was down to 11.7 per cent.
“The number of employees in the CBD was about 50,000 in the 1950s and it’s still only about 70,000 now. For a number of years it didn’t grow much at all, whereas the total regional employment was growing substantially,” Mr Mein said.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of saying “oh well Auckland’s employment is decentralised, public transport will never work here (which seems to be what the general tone of the article is hinting at). However, I interpret this as actually meaning that there is a very strong link between land-use policy and public transport outcomes – so if we want to get more people using public transport then our land-use policies need to focus on concentrating employment into the CBD and other ‘hubs’ around the city. There are many identified employment hubs around Auckland: the CBD, North Harbour/Albany, East Tamaki, Mt Wellington/Penrose, Manukau City/Wiri, Newmarket/Grafton and Takapuna/Westlake. However, two-thirds of the jobs in the Auckland region are not located in any of these employment hubs – a quite incredible figure!
Clearly, if Auckland is to move away from its severe auto-dependency then we will need to focus employment around hubs that can be easily accessed by public transport – in particular the CBD. Fortunately, the regional council is heading in the right direction on that front.
I think Auckland has come along way from 2006, when this data is carried out from. I think that the media has failed to mention the change in transport over the last 3 years and the work of ARTA and project dart. I’m sure we will hear more about these states from Steven in parliament sometime soon.
There also seems to conflicting data as the herald said that 13% of Wellingtonians use public transport, but tvnz, dominion post and tv3 stay they use it 25% of the time. That figure seems relatively high, but I hope would act as a spring board for other NZ cities to follow.
Finally I think the data really shows the importance of a good commuter rail system! (I think the land-use has intensified near the Wellington railway station over the years but hasn’t happened in other centres due to the car)
The Dominion post version of this article is online at http://www.stuff.co.nz/domion-post/news/2569534/Capital-transport-streets-ahead which places the Wellington public transport use at a quarter, a figure I suspect to be more accurate than the 13%. Interestingly, it reports the figures for Christchurch as 1% and Auckland 4%.
The CBD figures are also very useful. The trend is that the larger the city, the fewer people work in the CBD. If you look at Sydney and Melbourne, most people live in the suburbs, and also work there, and in some cases rarely visit the CBD. Wellington also has high CBD figures because of it being the capital, and a high percentage of jobs are government related (and in almost all cases in the CBD).
The CBD figures go some way to explaining why Wellington has better public transport with Auckland. Also important here is the way Wellington’s population is concentrated in the Hutt Valley and Porirua/Kapiti area, froming two big arms, requiring only one railway line for each to get most of the population close to a train station.
From the figures, we can see that any public transport system for Auckland should not be CBD focused like Wellington, but be a more suburb-suburb based connections(Sydney is best in Australasia in this regard).
I’m not sure if concentrating jobs in the CBD and other hubs is the best way to reduce auto-dependency. It could move jobs further from where people live, and thus making their car comutes longer. Even if it does increase PT use, it could increase car use as well, and increase greenhouse emissions, car dependency and congestion.
If you want to look for a real utopia to look at for non car dependence, how about Copenhagen in Denmark (similar in size to Auckland). While Auckland is too spread out, does not have the same culture and geography or infrastructure Copenhagen has, and thus Auckland will never have the same rates as Copenhaen, transport planners hsould still study it, and look at what we can learn from it.
Look at these figures for how people travel to work (source http://www.sfbike.org/download/copenhagen/bicycle_account_2004.pdf :
cycling 36% (and these high numbers are still increasing)
public transport 33%
car 27% (yes, only 27%)
walking 5%
It is notable that Copenhagen was not always like this. Prior to the 1970s oil shocks it was just as car dependent as any other European city (although that means less car dependent than we are today). Whats more notable, they achieved the above partly through a policy of deconcentration of workplaces (e.g. having fewer people work in the CBD), and the percentage of workplaces (I’m not sure if this means number of workplaces or number of employees, on this issue it says the CBD area has 20% more workplaces than people in the workforce, indicating the former) in the CBD area fell from 50% in 1970 to 38% in 2002. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/j25lur64178v8627/ for details. Obviously deconcentraion in Auckland may not have the same effect as in Copenhagen, but is worth considering if concentrating the workforce in the CBD is the best idea.
Sorry if this post is long, and the arguement contradictory (what I seem to get at is high concentration can be good for public transport (Wellington), and low concentration not as good, but very good for cycling e.t.c (Copenhagen))
Sorry wrong address. http://www.springerlink.com/content/j251ur64178v8627/
Thanks for that link Nicholas – looks like it makes interesting reading.
Regarding Copenhagen – I definitely look forward to visiting that city some day. One place that certainly seems to have got things right in many many different ways.
While it is good to have Copenhagen as a role model, it is worthwhile to remember that Copenhagen has a different geological makeup to Auckland. There, it’s pretty flat. Here we have ridges, and valleys, meaning there are hills to climb.
In considering any increase to cycling in Auckland, one must consider how to ‘flatten’ the hills, through the use of bridges and tunnels. The necessary evolution of cycling maps in Auckland will be towards showing where bridges / tunnels are necessary. From there, a good whack of the Minister of Tarseal’s budget will be needed to construct this system.
Oh I agree Auckland’s never going to be a cycling city like Copenhagen. I am most impressed by what Copenhagen has done to its downtown area – through the mass pedestrianising of the CBD. That is something that Auckland most definitely could do – and thankfully is finally embarking upon to some extent with the Shared Streets project.
If I were running for Mayor of the Super-City next year I would run on the platform of proposing to pedestrianise Queen Street between Mayoral Drive and Customs Street – it would be fantastic.
You did missed the main point of the coment above, which was that concentrating workplaces in the CBD e.t.c might not be the best idea.
Auckland is unlikely to be a cycling city like Copenhagen (although more could be done to encourage active mode of transport). Pedestrianising important streets is a priority not only for this reason, but also makes public trnasport more useful, by shortening walking times from Britomart to your CBD workplace, by no waiting to cross roads. There is also the aesthetic value of having all that extra pedestrian space, and you can develop a European style cafe culture.
The other important lesson to lear from the statistics, regarding workplace locations is in future public transport planning.
Just as Auckland is unlikely to be a cycling city like Copenhagen, it will not be unlikely to become a train city like Wellington, due to the different geography. In Wellington you may get 5000 people move from A to C, and another 5000 from B to C. In Auckland you may get 1000 people move from A to B, another thousand B to A, another thousand C to B, another thousand C to A, 500 from D to E, !000 from E to A, and !00 from A to D e.t.c. The point is that the Auckland geography and workplace locations are very different in Auckland to Wellington.
In Wellington you have two major public transport corridors (the Hutt Valley and Paraparaumu train lines) and a few minor ones (The Johnsonville line, and a few bus routes.
In Auckland, to provide a good public transport system, you will have few major corridors, and many minor ones (wihout the patronage to justify a railway).
Thus the centrepeice of Aucklands public transport network is for the forseeable future likely to remain the bus network, not the railways, as it is better for trips that involve fewer people, and buses can travel to many more locations than trains can. Thus the immediate focus of public transport in Auckland should be on integrated ticketing and a city wide buslane/busway network, instead of say the CBD rail loop (and creating extra buslanes is much cheaper than building new railways).
The real long term goal should be a different mode system serving different areas, along the lines of:
Close inner suburbs (i.e Ponsonby) to CBD- cycling or light rail
More distant inner suburbs (i.e. Point Chavalier) to CBD- buses or rail/light rail (using the Karlsruhe model of trains also functioning as trams on the streets)
Medium distance suburbs (i.e. Ne Lynn) to CBD- heavy rail, missing out stops in inner suburbs to achieve maximum speed
Suburb-suburb connections- buses, light or heavy rail on very important links, or between important hubs, like Henderson and Manakau)
Outer suburbs (i.e Swanson) to CBD- rail via local hub (Henderson in this case), then medium speed rail (150kph) to CBD
Surounding towns (i.e. Helenville when it has more people, Pukekohe, Orewa e.t.c) to CBD and hubs- medium speed rail.
Integrated ticketing and transport planning will be very important, so a journey can combine these modes. For instance a person living in Massey, and working in Ponsonby, can catch a bus to Rainui, tarin to Henderson, medium speed rail to Britomart, and then light rail to Ponsonby.
Why has someone at Stats NZ decided to release some “new analysis” on this data now? Calling it analysis is a bit of stretch as well – it’s just basic journey to work (JTW) data that has been available for over 2 years. This “analysis” may have been vaguely interesting to the Stats NZ geeks straight after the Census, but three years later? I doubt this was an exciting project for someone. A cynical person might see this release as a softening up of the public (particularly us Auckland folk) to justify the plans for less PT investment and more spending on Roads (to baches) Of National (party) Significance.
I agree 100% with you Nicholas. A lot of inner Auckland grew around the tram network during the early 20th century – we have never been a train city like Wellington and it is difficult to see us ever becoming as much of a train city as Wellington is.
I can’t actually ever see a day where more people use the train than the bus in Auckland – so absolutely it is critical to focus on the bus network. Two things need to be done to the bus network though, to improve it:
1) We need smart-card ticketing to speed up the boarding process. There’s nothing more tedious than waiting 2-3 minutes while a line of people fork out change or their bus passes to get on the bus. Fast smart-card ticketing should greatly speed up boarding time, and therefore reduce the time disadvantage that catching the bus compared to driving inherently has.
2) We need more bus lanes. At the moment we only really have bus lanes within Auckland City, and even then they are missing along some roads that are absolute no-brainers – like Queen Street, Karangahape Road, Manukau Road, parts of New North Road and so forth. Bus lanes are critical in that they can make catching the bus faster than driving – therefore giving people a real incentive to use public transport.
I agree with making the CBD far more pedestrian friendly. The “Shared Streets” project that is currently being planned by the Auckland City Council is a good step in the right direction, but maybe some day someone will have the guts to propose the pedestrianising of Queen Street.
A couple of things that are critical to the future of Auckland’s public transport are integrated ticketing and also integrating bus routes with train routes. It is crazy how many long-haul bus routes directly compete with train routes, or even with bus routes run by other companies. In the outer suburbs bus routes should primarily feed into train stations, or provide cross-town linkages. In parts of the city not served by rail, we should have bus routes that effectively act like train replacements – infrequent stops, prepay only and running as much as possible in bus lanes. Anything to speed them up.
So to get back to your main point Nicholas, I do think some further concentration of employment in the CBD will be beneficial, but I understand that Auckland will never be a Wellington in that respect. However, what we can do is ensure that most future employment is located either within the CBD or within a limited number of regional centres (hubs). Providing public transport to those hubs and between the hubs should enable public transport to be viable for a far greater number of people.
Basically, land-use planning and transport-planning need to be integrated far more than we see at the moment. We should never allow another Flat Bush, with a future 40,000 people but no decent public transport link to any other part of Auckland, to be built.
Perhaps they can put conductors on buses, like they have on trains, and thus people buy tickets when the bus is moving, instead of on boarding times.
It would be too expensive to cover the extra wage-bill I think. Furthermore, smart-card ticketing should speed things up quite a lot and hopefully reduce dwell time at bus stops.