Dialogue: Buses lot cheaper option than rail

Bus operators are often urged to work with rail to fix Auckland's public transport problem. But they have good reason to think that rail is not a good choice for the city's transit corridors.

Unlike many overseas cities with heavily subsidised public transport, Auckland's bus companies are privately owned. They have built their businesses using their own resources and taking their own risks.

So it is no wonder these companies are anxious about local bodies putting a huge investment into a competing rail system when it has not proved to change commuting habits.

More than half Auckland's bus services don't attract a subsidy from road-users or ratepayers. These routes usually run through the main traffic corridors, where large numbers of people travel. The bus companies have invested to attract people onto their services without subsidies.

While some people knock Auckland's buses, more than $90 million has been invested in 425 new buses for the city, replacing 60 per cent of the fleet. This big investment must not be ignored.

The Auckland Regional Council's transport action plan identifies certain corridors as key rapid-transit routes. The North Shore busway is one, the western and southern rail lines are another two.

Bus operators support the concept of rapid-transit corridors. Public transport works best when it competes with the car in speed, reliability and convenience. The corridors are essential if that is to happen.

It is equally true that rail freight needs the corridors. There is room for freight trains and buses in the corridors, with a physical separation so both can run at the same time.

Planners and politicians need to be sure a careful analysis of patronage forecasts, costs and revenue is done before decisions are made on mode selection.

Auckland cannot afford a rail solution for public transport.

The regional and city councils have worked hard to put in a network of bus priority lanes. These form the basis of an effective public transport system (and we need more of them). As the Minister of Transport has noted, more can be done without spending huge amounts of money on big-ticket items such as rail services.

New Zealand has limited resources to spend on public transport, and every dollar spent has to count. Rail is an expensive option.

When a new rail line is built, 70 per cent of the new passengers come out of buses, not cars. Both modes end up being subsidised and bus services are marginalised. Neither works well.

If rail is expanded in Auckland, bus services will be rerouted to stations so that passengers, who once travelled directly to their destinations, have to transfer. Bus operators will see their passengers taken off their commercial trunk routes and transferred to a heavily subsidised mode.

And Aucklanders hate transferring. They have said this in surveys. They don't like waiting around and the risk of missing their connection.

If buses use the rail corridors, they would pick people up near their homes, use the roads to reach the corridor, then bypass congestion, exit at any number of points and drop people off close to their destinations. Ninety per cent of passengers on the O-Bahn in Adelaide, a successful busway, complete their journey without needing to transfer.

Rail works only when there are very large numbers of people to be carried, such as in Europe, parts of the United States and Asia. Auckland has no corridors which justify rail. There are just not enough people available.

Aucklanders' travel has a huge number of origins and destinations. Only 11 per cent of people work in the city centre but this is where the rail service is focused. The city must have a system that is flexible, cost-efficient, attractive and reliable. Only buses can provide this.

Auckland spends about $50 million a year on public transport carrying about 6 per cent of the population. Similar-sized Australian cities - Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide - have extensive rail systems. They still carry only about 6 per cent of their population, but spend six times as much money doing so because each city has a substantial rail network.

Subsidising rail in Auckland will eat up all the available money and more, so bus operations will be marginalised. People in remoter areas who depend on off-peak services and people who travel to other than the city centre will find their bus services reduced.

The lesson in Auckland is clear: rail can compete only if it operates on main routes, without competition from buses. Most of these routes are commercial. The regional council's research show that transferring bus passengers to light rail will mean a subsidy of at least $9 a passenger. Imposing such a cost on ratepayers and road-users is unjustifiable.

But busways in Adelaide, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Miami and Curitiba all illustrate that buses are able to convert car-users to public transport.

Christchurch has been running a battery-powered bus (the Shuttle) for two years, carrying a million people a year in zero-emission comfort. People say it's great to see an environmentally friendly vehicle. New Zealand-designed and built, the Shuttle runs smoothly and quietly and is user-friendly.

Another exciting possibility is the French-built Civis, which has all the advantages of a light-rail unit. It can be self-guiding and zero-emission, with the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of a bus system.

The improvements in Auckland's buses have a strong vote of approval. Two million people each year use the downtown Link service, for example - more than Auckland's entire railway system. New bus services are attracting new patronage. The Remuera Rider corridor is up 28 per cent on the same time last year.

It is no longer sufficient to rely on old surveys claiming that the public don't want buses. The Automobile Association conducted a survey last September on attitudes towards Auckland's transport options.

When asked which combination of motorway, rail or bus priority systems they supported, a small majority supported a motorway and rail option. But when the costs of the rail and motorway option were explained, sufficient numbers changed their minds to give buses an edge (30 per cent against 24 per cent).

Rail is not useful in an Auckland context. Our resources are limited. We have to use them wisely. Not enough people move in any Auckland corridor to justify a rail system, but the diverse travel patterns do support an effective bus network, based around the corridors identified in the transport action plan.

* John Collyns is executive director of the Bus and Coach Association.

Herald Online feature: Getting Auckland moving

Herald Online traffic reports