Are buses always the greener option?
With plenty of time, and a Presbyterian reluctance to fork out $60 plus on a taxi, I decided to take the bus from Auckland airport to the city yesterday.
There was just one other passenger on it.
Buses running full will reduce traffic congestion and use less fuel than lots of smaller vehicles, but smaller buses or cars must be better than running big buses with few passengers.
But it’s difficult to be flexible with buses. They have to have to have timetables and stick to them regardless of whether or not people are using them.
I suppose two of us in a bus that would be doing the journey anyway was better than us taking a taxi each and the bus running empty and it did save me about $50.
Homepaddock 
The Auckland airport bus operates a long, convoluted, non-direct route to an from the airport which must do much to discourage patronage. I caught it once, several years ago, and never again.
By comparison, the Wellington airport bus operates a semi-express direct service and is usually full.
The Auckland service is so bad that the airport company is urging for a rail extension to the airport and has made space available for a terminal.
However, rest well, HP, your beloved taxes are not paying for the Auckland service. It is run as a commercial business by a private company and attracts no subsidy, so it obviously makes a profit.
Likewise the excellent Wellington Flyer airport service. It also operates as a commercial service and attracts no subsidy.
LikeLike
That is why shuttle services proliferate. The cost is shared but they still go where you want.
A taxi for me these days is over $100.
LikeLike