2018 census journey to work patterns for Auckland

The 2018 census journey to work data for Auckland provides some clues as to whether compact city is helping to support less vehicle use and greater reliance upon bus, train, ferry, walking and cycling (or BTFWC for short).

At the top level of the Region as a whole, in 2018 17.3% of people aged over 15 years who work, usually took the bus, train, ferry, walked or cycled as their main mode of travel to work This is up from 13.5% in 2006.

Looking at the 2018 data for BTFWC at the Local Board level, and arranging Local Boards (apart from Waitakere, Waiheke and Great Barrier Island) roughly north to south results in the pleasing ‘Mt Taranaki’ type profile set out in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: % of work trips by bus, train, ferry, walking and cycling - 2018

As distance from the centre increases, then the proportion of work trips by BTFWC drops, with a similar pattern either side of the CBD.

If we look at the pattern over the period 2006 to 2018, then the central Waitemata Local Board area saw more of a lift in BTFWC trips than the outer Boards. See Figure 2.

Figure 2: % work trip by bus, train, ferry, walking and cycling 2006, 2013, 2018

The central Waitemata Local Board area has seen BTFWC climb from 38.8% of work trips in 2006 to 52.6% in 2018. At the other end of the Region, the Rodney Local Board area has gone from 6.1% to 5.6%, or a relative decline in other words (although this may because the census questions varied between the different censuses).

A Local Board area level of analysis is fairly coarse, and a more fine-grained level may help to highlight more specific trends, but at a strategic level, the Local Board level is not a bad place to start.  Also, the main means of travel to work variable is rated as moderate quality by Stats NZ and caution is advised when using this variable at small geographies.

So far, so good.

Now let’s look at where the new housing has located over the period 2013 to 2018.
The census records an increase of over 60,000 dwellings during the five years between 2013 and 2018.

If this data is arranged by Local Board area, again roughly north-to south, the we get a ‘triple peak’ outline, rather than the single peak of the BTFWC travel to work data.

Figure 3: Additional dwellings by Local Board 2013-2018

The northern outer suburbs saw a big increase, as did the central area, and the southern edge. The inner and middle suburbs took limited growth. If we match that picture up with the % of work trips by BTFWC, then the miss match is evident.

Figure 4: Mode of travel (2018  - right hand side) and new housing (2013 -2018- left hand side).

But of course, this miss-match makes sense. As distances from the centre increase, and transport costs rise (both private vehicle use and passenger transport services), then land and house prices should fall, making the edge more attractive for new housing.

It is tempting to look at the ‘gap’ either side of the central area and to speculate what would have been the transport outcomes if the region saw a more even pattern of housing growth between 2013 and 2018.  That is, new housing occurred roughly in-line with the share of dwellings in the Local Board areas, as of 2013. This could be called a 'fair share' approach to growth. Perhaps not a totally realistic approach, in that some Local Board areas may be less able to cope with growth than other areas (for example Local boards with extensive areas of heritage housing). Nevertheless, a fair share approach is a relevant policy approach.

If the new housing between 2013 and 2018 was allocated to each Local Board area based on the share of housing as of 2013, then we get the pattern in Figure 6.  The outer Local Board areas see less housing and the middle and inner Local Board areas see more. The central Waitemata Local Board area has less growth.

Figure 6: Additional dwellings 2013-2018, actual and reallocated.

The three peaks get flattened out, and the outline is more like a rolling landscape.

This is a very simplistic approach to reallocation, as household types vary between the different Local Board areas. Typically, the south sees larger number of people per dwelling, and so will have more trips per dwelling than smaller households on the North Shore, for example.

We can then compare the number of work trips generated by the reallocated ‘fair share’ pattern versus the actual pattern and see what difference that makes.

To do so, I first need to work out the number of work trips generated by each dwelling in each Local Board area; broken down into the number of BTFWC trips and the number of trips made by people in cars, on a per dwelling basis.

Figure 7: Work trips per 100 dwellings, 2018

Figure 7 shows the pattern. The Mt Taranaki profile of BTFWC trips is again apparent. Vehicle trips have a central “V” shaped valley profile. What is interesting is that vehicle trips rates are reasonably similar, across the Local Board areas, outside of the central area. The length of trips (kilometres travelled) may be greater, but the number of trips is similar. There is a bit of a rise in the south.

I can now compare the number of work-related vehicle trips and the number of BTFWC trips under the two scenarios: that is as per actual pattern of growth 2013 to 2018, and the re-allocated pattern. Table 1 sets out the estimate of trips.

Table 1

Under the fair share scenario with more dwellings in the middle and inner suburbs, the number of vehicle trips goes up, not down! The number of BTFWC trips increase marginally. Partly this increase in vehicle trips is due to fewer dwellings in the central Waitemata Local Board area and more dwellings in adjacent Local Board areas that have higher rates of vehicle use (and which also see more BTFWC trips). So maybe there is a logic to the observed growth patterns?

What the analysis doesn’t tell me is whether the greater population density in some areas helps supports more bus or train services, for example, or if congestion is better or worse.  What it does tell me is that changing transport patterns through changes to urban form is hard work and likely takes a long time.

Next I want to do the same exercise, but this time in relation to destinations (that is, workplaces).

Covid 19 and urban planning

What does Covid-19 (or similar viruses in the future) mean for cities? The lockdown provides time for some idle thinking.

Already the speculation has started:  The Guardian suggests that pandemics have always shaped cities – and from increased surveillance to ‘de-densification’ to new community activism, Covid-19 is doing it already (Note 1). The Brookings Institute provides a commentary in its post "The qualities that imperil urban places during COVID-19 are also the keys to recovery." (Note 2).

Usually this speculation starts with density debates, will Covid-19 mean the end of density as workplaces disperse and people avoid crowded spaces?

Maybe there is a correlation between Covid cases and population density. The graph below is of known Covid-19 cases per 1,000 people, by District Health Boards, as of 9 April 2020. 

It is a bit of a mixed bag. The big Auckland DHB features, but then next in line is the much smaller Nelson- Marlborough. The urban focused Waitemata, Capital and Coast and Canterbury DHBs are a bit higher than the the smaller centres, but not much. Counties-Manukau is in the middle of the pack. The Southern Distrct Health Board has the highest number, on a population basis.  Perhaps the NZ figures just show the benefit of the early lockdown and the relative influence of cases related to overseas arrivals, rather than community transmission.

So what of the future? Post 9/11 there was a lot of talk about no more tall towers in urban centres as these would be magnets for terrorists. Cities didn't go that way. Neither will Covid-19 or other pandemics mean the end of density But there are some possible responses that could affect how cities are organised.

Since everyone is having a go, I thought I may as well too.

First up, the pandemic has demonstrated the value of science and politicians (and people) following the advice of scientists. Perhaps this will flow through into less acute, but nevertheless critical issues like climate change and other aspects of public health and environmental management. Having said that, facing a immediate threat is obviously different to trying to deal with something that can be pushed off for future generations to grapple with.   Nevertheless, the importance of leadership, communication and taking early action have been demonstrated. Perhaps these qualities could be enshrined in the replacement to the RMA.

Secondly, I think emergencies tend to speed up current trends, and so trying to head in a different direction once out of the immediate threat is very hard to do. Christchurch may not be the best example to use (as I don't know the detail very well), but did the earthquake tend to reinforce  the previously evident trend of dispersal of housing and workplaces to surrounding areas?  The desire to get back to normal is so strong, longer term consequences get set aside. The dispersal helped address immediate housing needs but the abandonment of any sort of co-ordinated transport and 'sub regional hubbing' strategy may yet hobble many of these short term benefits. 

The fast growth that many cities saw over the last 5 years or so had started to cool before Covid-19 spread. House prices may have started to top out.  Will the pandemic be the circuit breaker for the over investment in housing as an asset class that has dogged cities in the post GFC period? The response to the GFC saw asset prices spiral and private debt balloon. That can't happen again. This time around, house prices may fall, rents will be controlled, immigration will slow, AirBnB will shift to a long term rental platform. Meanwhile many firms will be looking for capital to rebuild and new markets to sell into.  Share markets will rebound and climb quickly. Hopefully people will see the 'down then up' in their Kiwisaver accounts and be re assured.

We still need investment in housing but the opportunity should be taken to re balance investment decisions by making it more attractive to invest in real businesses. The big question mark will be over central area apartments, long funded by investors and finance companies and seen to be a core aspect of growth management plans, will there still be funding to build these?  But also how to handle the distress of high debt, falling house prices and stagnant incomes in the suburbs? More supply will not sort out that problem.

Fewer employees and low density workplaces. Will there be a push to make greater use of casuals and temps in businesses? Go through a big and quick down turn and business is bound to ask why have so many permanent employees which are hard to 'un-hire' during a big down turn, and not more casuals and temps. Couple that with some sort of physical distancing requirement for the layout of workplaces and greater acceptance of remote working, and there is the potential for employment densities (but not office floor space) to drop in central areas. While 'teleworking' (as it used to be known) has long been seen as a force to undermine CBDs, it never really took off.  It may be that casualisation of the workforce is what pushes the process along. Does capitalism take another step into blurring the lines between home and work? Houses have been financialised and now homes are being turned into workplaces (or perhaps turned back into workplaces, given that in pre-industrial times home and work were never that separated?)

Public transport may take a big hit. Who will want to get onto a crowded bus or train if Covid 19 is still circulating in a city?  Who will pay the subsidies needed to keep near empty buses and trains running. Walking and cycling are ok, as well as feeling safe in your own car. Road pricing really needs to be brought in now to help dampen down congestion and help pay to keep public transport running. Should every household be given an electric bike as part of the recovery package and a lane dedicated on all motorways for electric two wheeled vehicles, even on the harbour bridge?

The future of retail/cafes/restaurants is an area of much speculation. The decline of physical shops has long been debated. Post lock down and there is bound to be a collective rush to the Malls to make up for lost time. But then shops and cafes may have to focus on take-out services and on-line shopping in the near future. Pre-ordering your coffee and booking your place in the supermarket line may be the way to go. At some point the need for expensive shop fronts will start to wan. With that comes questions over how to fill ground floor spaces and sustain the street-level activity that generates so much of the oxygen in cities.  Perhaps temporary street markets and central market places will be the way to go.

Better air quality, safer streets, more green spaces. The benefits of less vehicle pollution and road noise, safer streets and being close to open space are clear to see. These benefits should not be lost. At the moment, these benefits come with a massive economic cost for businesses and civil liberties. So, a different way of achieving the same outcomes need to be found. The Guardian article mentioned at the start noted that pandemics have always seen a 'public works' response as new infrastructure is built to better manage the threat. Perhaps safer, quieter streets and better open spaces could be the legacy of this pandemic?


Note 1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/26/life-after-coronavirus-pandemic-change-world

Note 2: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/25/the-qualities-that-imperil-urban-places-during-covid-19-are-also-the-keys-to-recovery/