Hobart public transport patronage

Across Tasmania and in Greater Hobart public transport data is not widely available, as a culmination of several factors which affects the potential for analysis and planning, and the understanding of network operations.

This lack of data is generally due to contractual arrangements with bus operators and poor transparency practices from the government. Comparably, other states allow researchers and the public to access aggregated public transport information in a few clicks.

To gain a better understanding of the situation in Hobart, I have collated information available from several sources to provide a high-level snapshot of public transport patronage in Hobart.

History

The historic patronage of public transport in Hobart has been researched or documented, and provides a fascinating insight into shifting attitudes and service reliability and availability. Urban public transport in Hobart commenced in 1893 with the introduction of electric trams. Research by David Cosgrove of the Australian Government Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) shows the total public transport trips from as far back as 1900, and shows that Hobart’s peak of public transport was around 1950, when around 34 million trips were made per year.¹

Wartime rationing had led to a reduction in motor vehicle use and a change in travel behaviour, but the post-war boom also came with the commencement of the automobile age. The degradation of public transport began around 1950 as well, with the conversion of tram lines into trolleybus lines, and better investment in roads.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, between 1960 and 1971, public transport dropped 25% from 20.4 million journeys to 15.4 million. Following planned obsolescence going as far back as 1947, and the height of suburban rail in 1954, major service cuts and frequency reductions led to 66% fewer people using suburban rail in 1971 compared to 1960.² Ferries stopped regularly crossing the Derwent upon the opening of the Tasman Bridge in 1964. The closure of the Hobart tram network in 1960 and trolleybus network in 1968 had shifted people onto buses, and the transport task of buses was slowly increasing.

Data from 1974-75 shows how travel behaviour is shaped by the infrastructure and services provided. Road-based public transport remained steady at 15.4 million journeys, whereas in the six months prior to its closure, the Hobart suburban railway carried 300,000 people. The collapse of the Tasman Bridge in 1975 had led to a massive shift away from private cars, and the reintroduction of ferries saw 3.3 million journeys in the approximate six months from January to June 1975, to an overall network total of 19 million journeys.³

Problem

This analysis focuses on determining the patronage of Metro Tasmania services today, in the modern market-driven transport sector, where operators are conscious of giving out information which can be advantageous to its competitors. Now that there are multiple players in the market for Hobart general access bus contracts, this information is not easily attained, however smaller companies are not subject to the scrutiny that a government-business enterprise like Metro is.

The primary issue for this analysis is finding possible data sources, and establishing the credibility and accuracy of the data. The best source is from Metro, who publish an annual report which shows its statewide boardings and overall performance. These are available on their website up to 2012. Reports prior to then have been uncovered through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which shows archived snapshots and files of web pages throughout time. Fortunately, Metro’s annual reports from 1999 to now (with exception to FY 00/01) were available.

The use of newspaper reports from 1996 onwards have assisted with some insights, though do not make up the bulk of any data. They have helped understand issues with the network, particularly with commentary around network performance such as the September 1996 service cuts.

Modern analysis

In more recent times, public transport patronage has been difficult to determine, however there have been certain documents and evidence brought forward for public scrutiny.

The patronage values for government buses in Hobart from 1985/86 to 2012/13 were provided to the Tasmanian Government Prices Oversight Committee by Metro for the purposes of reviewing their fares.⁴

Between 1985/86 and 1998/99, total patronage in Hobart fell by approximately 34%. The 1985/86 year had a total patronage of around 10.75 million trips.⁵

As part of my analysis, patronage values up to 2014 were compared to those found in Metro’s annual reports going as far back as 2000.⁶ More recent figures were also found using Metro’s annual reports.⁷ Where there is overlap in years, the more granular data is used.

From 1989 to 2003, patronage data excluded regional and non-urban trips, but in March 2004, trips from New Norfolk, Bothwell, the Channel and Kingston areas were added when Metro subsidiary Hobart Coaches introduced Metro’s ticketing system.

New Norfolk was removed in December 2008 from Metro’s contract area, and Bothwell was removed in December 2012. These regional areas were negligible, while Kingston and Blackmans Bay added a decent increase in patronage.⁸

The period from 2015 to 2023 is an estimated calculation from their respective annual reports, and required the following approach to analyse recent patronage.

Method

Patronage data has previously been reported in two ways – Total trips and First Boardings. Total trips is all trips made on public transport inclusive of transfer boardings, whereas first boardings are those which exclude transfers onto another service.

Due to a change from total trips to first boardings in 2014, estimations were required to determine the approximate total patronage.

In the 2014/15 annual report, 10,117,325 total trips were reportedly made statewide. The 2015/16 annual report comparatively listed 8,182,088 first boardings statewide. This new metric excluded transfer boardings made within 90 minutes of a first boarding, and was not reflective of the total number of trips.

Fortunately, the 2015/16 report compared the previous years’ first boardings which were 8,005,247 trips. The difference between 8,005,247 first boardings and 10,117,325 total trips is the number of transfer boardings.

In 2015/16, Hobart accounts for 78.7% of the reported statewide 8,005,247 trips. Therefore, 21.3% of trips are made outside of Hobart.

Calculating the percentage difference means there are approximately 10,133,224 total trips, not including rounding error on the percentage, which for this calculation is considered near enough to the actual value of 10,117,235 trips.

To find the approximate total trips, the sum of the percentages of first boardings were divided by the given number of first boardings. This is determined using the bar charts provided in each annual report.

Analysis

Metro reported to the government that between 1985/86 and 1994/95 there had been a 34% decrease in patronage across the network.⁵ This was even after a rebranding and new ticketing system in 1987, a network review in 1990, a new Express network in 1991, and the acquisition of new Scania buses until 1996.

Substantial service cuts in September 1996 came with the decrease in funding and revenue. This did not aid an already dwindling system. Metro tried to bounce back with new services, including Doorstopper and Shopper Shuttles, but the only service that was allegedly known to have made a profit in this time was the Hobart to Sandy Bay ‘Busy Bee’ services.

Patronage had been steadily decreasing in the mid-1990s, with fortunes turning in 2001. A substantial jump occurred in 2004 when non-urban trips including Kingston and Blackmans Bay started to be added.

The report for 2004/2005 provides an insight into patronage levels, with 7,159,000 trips in Hobart, but once totalled for Kingston and regional, this rose to 7,579,000 trips. The actual figure of regional trips was 149,143 trips, so the inclusion of Kingston added some weight to patronage levels. 

The introduction of Greencard in late 2008/early 2009 was a major driver in growth, with special periods where people could order a Greencard for free, and the mass marketing campaign associated with the rollout.

Metro also operated many event services in 2011/12, including Boundary Rider buses for the Twenty20 Big Bash cricket.

The uptick of patronage in 2014 was attributed to university students. The Hobart network review was conducted in 2014/2015, with a new network implemented on 10 January 2016. This was designed to streamline services, clean up the network, and build on the success of the “Turn Up and GO” 10-minute corridor between Hobart and Glenorchy by uplifting Hobart to Howrah via Rosny Park.

2019 was the highest patronage recorded since the Greencard introduction, and showed that the system was beginning to recover. The Covid-19 pandemic, like all national transportation statistics, meant public transport has decreased and is likely to remain at lower levels for an extended period.

Whilst Metro’s information has been available to the public to some extent, the overall patronage levels for Hobart are likely more. Private operators, including Redline/Kinetic, O’Driscoll’s Coaches, and former operators such as Hazell Brothers or Smiths Surf to City, are not factored into this data, or data may not even be available for them.

From all accounts, patronage in Metro’s northern cities, Launceston and Burnie, is comparably small. The majority of trips made are in Greater Hobart.

The F2 ferry service, introduced in August 2021 between Bellerive and Brooke Street Pier, has not been included within this patronage analysis. The values for this service are presently only derived from newspaper reports, and hence only provide a high-level review of the level of service.

Conclusion

Data for Tasmanian public transport patronage is inadequate, and this high-level analysis only provides a reasonable hypothesis on what current statistics may be.

Without proper investment in services and infrastructure, the Tasmanian public transport system is to remain relegated to the dark ages. The Hobart network is currently performing as much as it did over a century ago. The past successes in Hobart evidently were at a time when multi-modal transport was plentiful, and the value-add of low-cost bus investment has failed to meet the same standard or need.

In 1964, the weekday public transport usage in Greater Hobart was 26%, or almost 62,000 passengers.¹⁰ In 2021, that value is around 5% for weekday journeys to work, or almost 6,500 passengers, noting that this data was affected by the pandemic.¹¹

The F2 ferry between Hobart and Bellerive was reported in January 2024 to have had 300,000 passengers since inception in August 2021.¹² New modes have the opportunity to shape cities and enhance the journey-making of passengers on the network, as long as they are timely.

The currently-planned Hobart rapid bus project, which aims to have three rapid corridors across Greater Hobart, may struggle at the first hurdle given the public (and the bureaucratic) mood about bus transportation.

Heading into the Tasmanian state election, major reform is needed for public transport in Tasmania, and particularly for Metro to return to the successes it once had. The McKell Institute’s report, produced in conjunction with the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, highlights these issues well, and is topical on some of the current needs for the network.¹³

It has been ten years since public transport patronage data has been published by the Tasmanian Government through the Economic Regulator and GPOC. The need for this data to be more transparent and available for research is critical for planners in all levels of government to understand and develop effective strategies that will build the future of public transport.

I hope that this research is beneficial and highlights the apparent policy failures that has marred public transport growth in Hobart. The decisions made by generations of governments have not served the best interests of the Hobart community, and have left them with a neglected public transport network. This research is my first attempt at any form of large-scale analysis, and I appreciate any feedback that may be raised.

Figures

1. ‘Urban passenger trips in Hobart from 1900 to 2010.‘ – Taken from Cosgrove, D., 2011, ‘Long-Term Patterns of Australian Public Transport Use’, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Proceedings of the Australasian Transport Research Forum, 28 – 30 September 2011, Adelaide, Australia. p. 5, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/sp_006
2. ‘Hobart passenger journeys by mode 1960 to 1971.‘ – Taken from BITRE 1972, ‘Economic Evaluation of Capital Investment in Urban Public Transport’, Bureau of Transport Economics, p. A14, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/1972/report_003
3. ‘Public transport journeys across six capital cities, including Hobart.‘ – Taken from BITRE 1977, ‘Urban Transport: Capital Requirements 1977–78 to 1979–80’, Bureau of Transport Economics, p.26, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/1977/report_027
4. ‘Metro Total Patronage Trends by Centre 1985/86 to 1998/99‘ – Taken from Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, ‘Submission to the Government Prices Oversight Commission – 18 February 2000‘, Tasmanian Government Prices Oversight Commission/Internet Archive, 14 June 2009, p. 48., https://web.archive.org/web/20090614002211/http://www.gpoc.tas.gov.au/domino/gpoc.nsf/LookupFiles/metsub.pdf/$file/metsub.pdf
5. ‘Total Boardings’ – Taken from Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, ‘Annual Report 2008/09’, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, p. 7, https://archive.org/details/Metro-Tasmania-Reports/2009%20Metro%20Annual%2
6. ‘Passenger Levels‘ – Taken from Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, ‘Annual Report 2015/16‘, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, p.6, https://www.metrotas.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Metro-Annual-Report-2015-2016-FINAL-VERSION-web-copy-200916.pdf
7. Author’s own work.

References

1. Cosgrove, D., 2011, ‘Long-Term Patterns of Australian Public Transport Use’, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Proceedings of the Australasian Transport Research Forum, 28 – 30 September 2011, Adelaide, Australia. p. 5, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/sp_006
2. BITRE 1972, ‘Economic Evaluation of Capital Investment in Urban Public Transport’, Bureau of Transport Economics, p. A14, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/1972/report_003
3. BITRE 1977, ‘Urban Transport: Capital Requirements 1977–78 to 1979–80’, Bureau of Transport Economics, p.26, https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/1977/report_027
4. GPOC 2009, ‘Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd‘, Tasmanian Government Prices Oversights Commission, Wayback Machine/Internet Archive, 12 June 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20090612065101/http://www.gpoc.tas.gov.au/domino/gpoc.nsf/e01bb0d93c54ef4eca256d4d0080e724/805cef9f2e64788bca2574e3008004a7?OpenDocument
5. Metro 2009, ‘Submission to the Government Prices Oversight Commission – 18 February 2000‘, Tasmanian Government Prices Oversight Commission/Internet Archive, 14 June 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20090614002211/http://www.gpoc.tas.gov.au/domino/gpoc.nsf/LookupFiles/metsub.pdf/$file/metsub.pdf
6. Metro 2023, ‘Annual Reports 1999-2012’, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd/Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/Metro-Tasmania-Reports/2010%20Metro%20Annual%20Report
7. Metro 2024, ‘Annual Report‘, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, https://www.metrotas.com.au/corporate/publications/annual-report/
8. Metro 2009, ‘Annual Report 2008/09’, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, p. 7, https://archive.org/details/Metro-Tasmania-Reports/2009%20Metro%20Annual%20Report
9. Metro 2016, ‘Annual Report 2015/16‘, Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd, p.6, https://www.metrotas.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Metro-Annual-Report-2015-2016-FINAL-VERSION-web-copy-200916.pdf
10. Wilbur Smith 1964, ‘1964 Travel Characteristics’, Hobart Area Transportation Study, Wilbur Smith & Associates, New Haven USA, p. 7
11. ABS 2021, ‘Method of travel to work on the day of the Census, top responses’, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census All Persons – Greater Capital City Statistical Areas, https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/6GHOB
12. Pulse 2024, ‘River Derwent ferry hits 300,000 passenger milestone as expansion plans progress’, Pulse Tasmania, https://pulsetasmania.com.au/news/river-derwent-ferry-hits-300000-passenger-milestone-as-expansion-plans-progress/
13. McKell Institute 2024, ‘A Better Deal: Fixing Tasmania’s Broken Public Transport System’, McKell Institute, https://mckellinstitute.org.au/research/reports/a-better-deal/