Last week I highlighted some of the interesting points from the last AT board meeting. One of those garnered quite a bit of discussion and also raised a number of questions in my head. Here are the answers from Auckland Transport to some of those questions.
How AT will monitor them and how will it deal with taxi services like Uber?
We are still working through the details of this proposal. As for monitoring, we plan to use a video camera operated on site by an enforcement officer, who will cross reference registration numbers against the NZTA database of authorised taxis.
The intention is to allow only taxis authorised by NZTA to use the bridge and not private hire vehicles like Uber.
Is it only taxis that have passengers or can empty ones use it too?
Empty ones will be able to use it as well.
Are there any changes to signage that will happen?
Some minor changes are planned, but we are still working through the detailed design.
Have the views of bus companies and cyclists been taken into account given the narrowness of the route?
As previously mentioned this proposal is still under development, but we have been working with our Public Transport Operations team on this. We will consult with bus operators and we will monitor any impacts to bus journey times using bus GPS data. We will also consult with cyclists on the proposal.
As part of the trial we also plan to conduct user surveys to understand the impacts on buses and cyclists. We are planning to conduct video surveys to identify any potential safety risks. We are planning 3 monthly review periods with the trial concluding after 12 months. If at any time we feel that it is not operating satisfactorily then we are prepared to terminate the trial.
Where did the idea come from?
We originally received a request from the taxi industry to permit taxis in all bus lanes in Auckland. We undertook an assessment of the likely impacts and we decided not to agree to this request. However, we did conclude that we could look at this specific location because it would provide significant benefits to taxi passengers on a route that links high demand destinations (i.e. the hospital and the city centre).
Has NZTA been consulted as they funded the strengthening works on the basis of it being bus only during the day?
We are still developing the proposal and once that is done we will be consulting NZTA.
As I said last week, this seems like it could have quite a bad outcome, especially for cyclists who are more likely to feel more pressured on the narrow road. It could also be quite bad for bus users if a lot of taxi’s start using the route as a bunch of taxi’s at lights might mean buses start missing a phase slowing buses down. Add to that the confusion between just what is a taxi and the sheep like nature of many drivers who might drive over the bridge from seeing other cars do it and it seems like a recipe for confusion and frustration. Leave it as it is and if the key is to link the city centre to the Hospital then Wellesley St seems like a much better option from most locations anyway.
Processing...
What about the 30 km/h speed limit – lots of buses already break it. More taxis speeding won’t help.
What is the likelihood that AT will listen to cyclists concerns. This sounds like a done deal with consultation after the fact.
The idea came from Nikki Kaye I understand.
Sounds about right. Obviously people that frequently use taxis (such as MPs) are more important than everyone else.
Maybe they should have a system where a bus lane fine gets waved if you can show you have a bank account balance over $1 million as you are obviously more important?
Yes – I had forgotten but it was she who last raised the matter back in 2009 when she was newly elected MP and trying to make a name for itself.
What is so difficult about apostrophes?
Anyway – taxis do not need to drive across Grafton bridge – thin end of the wedge.
Apostrophes are now allowed in shared spaces. Auckland Council made time available for discussion of apostrophes at a recent meeting but the conversation ended when it veered into general questions about inverted commas.
Good thing they didn’t get into the whole oxford comma argument then.
Did you know the Oxford writing guide prohibits Oxford commas?
You’re welcome to edit my posts for apostrophes when I finish writing them at 1am
The msin hazard for cyclists is cars squeezing by. Impatient motorists do this frequently at the weekends.Technically there is no overtaking as the bridge has double yellow lines the whole length. My advice to cyclists is claim your lanes forself preservation.
…except that you are actually legally allowed to overtake a bike even on a yellow centreline; still have to overtake with due care and consideration though.
Technically allowed to overtake anything, as long as you don’t cross the line, right? I can’t see how a car can safely overtake a cyclist on the bridge without either crossing the line or being too close.
Prediction: >95% of taxis will break the speed limit on the bridge. The other 5% will be stuck behind another vehicle.
I’ll still be smack bang in the middle of the lane on my bike. It’s absurd for them to try to overtake you there as the just have to stop at the lights anyway, where we ride past them again….
What possible rationale is there for this? It’s actually common in the UK for taxis to use bus lanes and I never understood it there either. Taxis are not public transport. In fact you can argue they are even worse than private cars. Not only do they often only carry one passenger, but they also drive around with no passengers looking for fares or going to pick-ups.
agreed, essentially a taxi with one passenger is an SOV, as IMHO, the driver remains as a functional component of the vehicle, further, taxis do not meet the primary function of transit lanes, which is taking vehicles out of traffic by increasing occupancy
Taxis can be public transport. I remember an occasion when I urgently needed a taxi to get from Wellington Station to the Airport and most unusually, found hardly any taxis and a massively long queue. With few other options available, I approached the person at the front of the queue, asked if their destination lay on the route to the airport (luckily it did), explained my dilemma and asked if I could very kindly share their taxi, pay the fare to the airport and drop them off where they wanted to go. Win-win all round. I got my urgent taxi. The other person got a free ride, the driver got a longer fare than he would have, and the planet was spared an additional taxi journey. Yay for public transport!
I guess the only person who lost out was potentially another taxi driver (who wasn’t available anyway), and possibly Air New Zealand who would have screwed another air fare out of me had I missed my flight. Perhaps those who advocate shared driverless taxis or shared pods can take heart from this story!
Of course, had I had more time I would have got the Airport Flyer bus as I usually do. And, if the train went all the way to the airport as it indeed should, then I wouldn’t even have needed to get out at Wellington Station!
Seems unnecessary to me. Especially for taxi’s with no passengers.
Who’s paying for the enforcement camera having to look up a database? Sounds like an expensive IT project?
They already have to do a DB-lookup to determine the registered owner so that an infringement notice can be sent. It’s a very small piece of additional work to extend that to checking whether there’s a licensed taxi operator in the mix.
But there will be hundreds of taxis in addition to the present situation of the occasional car breaking the rules. Certainly a lot more time involved.
They just need a permanent Automatic Number Plate reader camera set up there which take the photos and cross-checks the rego’s for bus or taxis and issues the ticket when they’re not.
But regardless this should be buses and cycles only not taxis.
“However, we did conclude that we could look at this specific location because it would provide significant benefits to taxi passengers on a route that links high demand destinations (i.e. the hospital and the city centre).”
Since when has the Grafton Bridge route been the quickest route between the Hospital and City Centre?
Quickest route is surely down Grafton Road then across into Wellesly St for mid town destinations, and for Waterfront/Britomart area, then Symonds St or SH16 and Stanley Sts to the waterfront. (and the reverse when coming back).
Might appear to be the shortest route on paper but when you take into account the many lights and the waiting involved its neither the best route when the taxi has paying passengers, nor the best route when its empty. A taxi driver is supposed to take the “quickest” (not shortest) route unless Passenger requests otherwise, so taking them on the Grafton Bridge where they **know** they will get stuck in lights is just a lazy way to milk more money from passengers as they’ll pay the distance charge (per km fee) and also get whacked for the waiting/time charges.
This is a load of bollocks from both AT and from the Taxi industry that smacks of extreme special pleading and is doing nothing but privileging a very, very few in private cars over the busloads who are using public transport on what is a very congested resource.
A simple examination of this would show that even 10 or so taxis could delay 5 or more busloads of passengers easily, costing all of them valuable time while they wait for the 10 taxis with their (at most) 10 passengers in total ahead of them to get through the lights.
10 people in taxis delaying 200 on buses? This is not particularly fair nor desirable.
AT get real, stop listening to the whining from these vested interest groups, stand up and simply say “No, Nyet, Nada!” to this dumb idea.
Because if you don’t, and grant them their wishes, then next they’ll all be wanting traffic light pre-emption rights or longer light phases on the bridge as well to prevent the congestion they’re causing.
And then you might as well give every taxi in Auckland a set of sirens and lights and be done with it – if you want to go down that slippery slope.
I never understood why cars are allowed to use it at certain hours too, it just makes it confusing.
Make it bus and cycle only, 24 hours 7 days! There are plenty of other routes for cars.
How is a taxi going about its buisness more important than a tradesman like myself going to a call out. Why should one industry get access while all others are banned. Why should my taxes/ rates go towards faster trips for taxi drivers whilst I sit in traffic?. The lane works well for buses so it should stay bus only.
the whole Grafton bridge bus thing has been a cock up from the word go. AT are probably now starting to try and roll back
Is the Taxi Industry part of the Road Transport Forum?
If so- end of conversation…
Re the London bus lanes, last time I was there Black Cabs could use them but not Mini Cabs.
Cabbies are neck and neck with couriers and work vans and people who drive Audis for being the most dangerous and least considerate drivers in the city as it is, and that’s saying a lot in Auckland. I don’t see any need to legalize the concessions they already take.
Taxis serve as public transport for some disabled people for whom our buses, trains and stations are not accessible enough. Fix the access problems and that need goes away.
How do other world cities treat taxis in bus lanes?
This is disturbing news but not surprising. As a City Councillor pre Super City it was quite common to be lobbied by the Taxi Federation for taxis to be allowed to use bus priority lanes but we always rejected their advances. And then several years later they would try again – usually gaining the support of a handful of Councillors but never the majority. We also had approaches from employers who run shuttles for their staff – our response was always that only scheduled public services were allowed in the lanes. I always told them to their face that it was a dopey idea potentially delaying buses carrying dozens for the sake of taxis carrying at most a handful of passengers. The priority lanes give buses a series of small advantages measured in seconds at each intersection or pinch point that accumulate into travel time savings measured in minutes – why fritter these away dodging random interlopers. But my main objection was and is that allowing taxis to share the lanes would undermine compliance – car drivers viewing taxis some way ahead may mistake them for ordinary private cars and be tempted to follow suit.
Graeme agree with your input 100%, its a slippery slope this taxis in bus lanes thing. Even more so on Grafton Road as there is no alternative for the buses, they have to use Grafton Bridge for their routes, Taxis don’t.
And I also agree with your main objection being compliance issues – since the T3 lanes went in Remuera Road AT now has gone from a single camera setup recording offenders to a two (“:stereo”?) camera setup which records the offenders in the lanes and also how many are in the car for T3 compliance as they drive past the camera position.
Now many of the worst offenders that I see as I ride in the lane are SUV drivers, not ones with school kids in the back on a school run, but are simply newer SUVs with dark tinted windows which make it really hard to see how many are inside, which renders the T3 camera enforcement a joke, as how can you prove they are breaking the law when you can’t see anyone inside the vehicle from the side?
In my view this should revert to a bus lane only, and then the compliance again becomes very simple and it should be further enforced by permanently mounted cameras – so you know that if drive in a bus lane when you’re not a bus operating scheduled services you will get fined, makes compliance easy and simple, Buses only, Buses plus not Taxis or Taxi Buses or SUVs with tinted windows.
Same on Grafton Bridge – either you’re a bus and allowed or you’re not so you’re not allowed.
Perhaps we should switch to a “market based” solution – taxis and private cars can drive on Grafton Bridge and in other bus lanes, they just have to pay an access fee of $150 per bus lane. If the taxi passenger wants to pay the access fees, then you can go in the fast lane. 🙂