Weekly Roundup 8-September-2023

One more for the roundup
“For the cost of $285 million, Milan will be building 466 miles of fully separated bike lanes. Building a fully interconnected bike network for 35% of the cost of rebuilding a Chicago highway interchange is simply a no-brainer.”
https://twitter.com/the_transit_guy/status/1699803663999336621

NZ urban terrain, for example Auckland terrain, like Wellington, is so varied. While there are urban centers like Christchurch, which are flat and people can utilize the option o active transport modes easily, residents in other centers need more help with facilitation.
While I think as many PT modes as possible need to be made available -eg light rail, many of these services are conceived without considering the wider choices in services provision users need to be enabled to make. Many outer suburban routes are still ‘death traps’ for anyone expecting to safely engage in active transport modes.
Most PT services are designed to facilitate a worker commuting, and anyone else wishing to travel has to fit in with this user profile. This means that they struggle to use the services when [for example] simply managing a weekly shopping trip to the supermarket, or for someone who is living with a disability will have difficulty – especially with the inadequate regulations eg as described in the recent Spinoff article -It’s against the law, so why are Kiwis with service dogs turned away? By Gill Higgins, Fair Go Reporter Tue, Sep 5 https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/05/its-against-the-law-so-why-are-kiwis-with-service-dogs-turned-away/
I have been told about this by other passengers, and experienced this on many occasions, when dealing with bad tempered drivers working under stress. So have many other passengers – even for such ‘crimes’ as attempting to board a bus with “too much shopping” etc; let alone being allowed on board with a dog! The disrespect towards people who dare to stray outside of the ‘preferred passenger profile’ ie; able-bodied, unburdened by luggage and happy to walk long distances, wait long times and catch multiple busses to get to their destinations. Sometimes the hostility from the [ possibly ‘traumatized and stressed’] driver, who cannot help but lash out at any passenger who deviates from the preferred customer ideal, is palpable. I get that sometimes this behavior could be seen as ‘industrial action’.
This is not totally the drivers fault. This lies with management and design teams, who have a woeful lack of insight into what is expected of them, and absolutely no incentive to provide employees or service users with anything better.
It is clear that the vehicles, service protocols and regulations that are being used are designed to ‘change’ customer behavior and provide service only to ‘preferred customer social groups’, eg groups like sports fans on match day, business commuters, and people using public transport during business hours for leisure.
What they are not designed for is the service users who need these services the most, or employees expected to manage services provision along narrow politically prescriptive administrative service provision models.
If services were being conceived as a genuine attempt to meet daily transport needs they would look very different. In the past, buses carried all manner of things. Luggage could be stowed in luggage compartments provided, large carriage prams and also bicycles were carried on special hooks placed at the rear of the bus, or in the luggage bays and drivers welcomed passengers with less mobility by assisting them off and on the bus. Drivers also [willingly] helped as the bus service sometimes provided more than one staff member on board.
This was of course at a time when car ownership was out of reach for many more NZers. However times change. Labor costs and welfare, which are in a similar position to a household’s food budget during times of economic hardship, while maybe not the most expensive commodity, is the most expendable. So service staff are cut to the minimum alongside that of capacity for compromising individual service user provision.
There are still things that could be changed to expand the service so more people would be happy to use the services as opposed to using the service as a last resort to meet hardship – eg their regular personal motor vehicle being unavailable for use, or being unable to afford to use or park a personal motor vehicle. Policies that include withdrawal of parking space without providing realistic alternatives are oppressive and help no-one except those who get paid for creating controversy.
We, the PT users, need to take a good hard look at what we need to be included in our PT services and remain vocal about this. Eg If we use a cycle or any other small personal mobility device demand that PT vehicles provide space to accommodate boarding with this transport- eg space for bicycle and mobility device docking, maybe to enable people to roll their vehicles onto selected PT vehicles, into parking spaces at the rear of some [yet to be designed] light rail vehicles and buses, used on outer suburban routes. Many of these vehicles are underutilized from their destinations and could easily provide mobility/cycle vehicle carrying spaces which could be located in the [often empty] seating spaces behind the rear entry.
Seats need not be entirely removed for this purpose. Currently fold up seating is provided for this purpose at the front of the bus. The reason it cannot be used by more people is that its location means that all passengers have to walk through the area to get to their seating. [DUH!]
The seating, while labeled as exclusive use for people who need this, is often allowed to be occupied by able bodied passengers who will not, nor are they asked to vacate when someone who is entitled to use the space boards the bus; unless of course the driver is forced to intervene due to a passenger who has a profound and obvious level of disability needs to board the bus. This is a rare as most of these people still find using PT more hassles and have taken up access to alternative specialist transport services.
More often, in the instance of service provision for passengers living with less profound or less obvious disability issues, due to obtuse enforcement of ‘health and safety’ regulations, a person carrying portable mobility equipment, including service animals, is more likely to be subject to ablest discrimination and denied service instead.
The result is that the passengers who need these special priority seating areas are deprived of access to it by PT services. If funding was accepted to provide these spaces then PT services are guilty of fraud. However the PT provider default action towards complaints mitigation on this and similar matters seems to be to alter service agreement regulations in ways which make using the service unattractive or withdraw services altogether for this sector.):V(
What is the public paying for in this instance? Its certainly not for services provision solutions.
Service providers are always moaning about minimal use regarding outer suburban routes and struggle to engage with potential users in these areas and only see cutting services or mishandling them until service users cease to use them as a solution.
People who would like to see PT services delivery to their area need to force services providers to change in this narrative. While there is less need for services which are able to carry personal mobility equipment in central locations, outer suburbs are more needy of these service provisions, because of the limited coverage of rail services.
PT services users should not be expected to readily accept PT service providers pleas of ‘its too hard and it can’t be done,too expensive’. When and why and by whom was the matter that these facilities have to be provided free of charge raised? Services provider objections seem to revolve around using the ‘too expensive’ as an excuse for continuing with surly, greedy and lazy services provision protocols, and the majority of service users are letting them get away with this all the time.
PS if anyone is wondering why I’m not escalating my civic duty, and attending many of the public meetings, or visiting my local government rep or MP, to talk about these issues the answer is simple- I can’t *C8ing get there because I have no access to safe or convenient transport ! Go figure.