Bus Lane Bullshit

[Drum]

You dont think that the part of the Transit Bylaw which "only allows motorway bus lanes to be used by 'timetabled passenger service vehicles'", gets around this signage requirement?

I will admit I have not read the Bylaw - so this is a genuine question.

[Quartida]

Sorry Jantar, I' jumped on that one a bit much

I'm sure bylaws can bypass the law. But you're right, I'm not a lawyer, and I ain't going to read all the legal mumbo jumbo to find out if I'm right.

And, according to someone (Nodman?), there ARE signs on the Auckland motorway bus lanes. Perhaps we need confirmation of this?


/ EDIT: Ooh, I stand corrected about bylaws. According to a geeky studying-to-be-a-lawyer friend (everyone needs one!), "I think bylaws have to be made within the authority delegated to them by law so they would be invalid if they contradicted the law" AND "They can make bylaws that contradict national law if the legislation allows. Like the prostitution reform..."
So the question is, is the council allowed to make a bylaw about bus lanes?

If yes, then we gotta accept it, because it's in the law that they can make bylaws.

There are just too many 'laws' in this post.

[Ixion]

A bylaw is a law made under the authority of another law. Typically, parliament passes a law, and one of it's provisions says "such and such authotiy make make rules to govern X". Bylaws can only exist where permited by statute law . And only deal with such matters as the statute allows .

The Brothel Bylaw has been mentioned. It is a good example. Parliament passed to Prostitution Reform Act. A statute. One clause in that Act authorised local councils to make Bylaws to regulate the location of the brothels which the statute made legal.

So, as a statute permitted a bylaw to be passed, most city councils did so. But the bylaws were only possible because the Act permitted them and the bylaws could only go as far as the Act permitted. And a number of the bylaws have been challenged in the High Court by people who say they went beyond what the Act allowed.

So, in the case of Transit NZ. The Act that set up Transit NZ authorised it to make bylaws to regulate the state highway and motorway system.Transit made such bylaws, one of which says (in effect) "Only buses allowed in the buslanes"

Parliament has now passed another Act (Well a Road Rule technically, but it is a statutory instrument), which says motorcycles may use bus lanes unless specifically prohibited. Transit say "Piss off, we don't care , OUR bylaw says you can't".

Whether the Transit bylaw can in fact negate a later statutory provision is a doubtful point in law. Normally later legislation overides earlier. But the "bus lane" rule did not SPECIFICALLY say "despite the Transit bylaw" (as it could have). So it is a grey area, arguable either way.

And will not be settled until some deep pocketed martyr is willing to deliberatly get a ticket and fight it through the courts. It is a pity Sir Bob Jones is not a motorcyclist.

[Jantar]

No, I don't believe it does get around the signage issue. I also haven't read the bylaw, but if the quote is correct then it also excludes charter busses.

A friend of mine was an MP on the select commitee that considered this rule change. Unfortunately he lost his seat at the last election so can no longer represent us. However the rule change was targetted at allowing small, manouverable vehicles like motorcycles (and pushbikes in the cities) to use bus lanes. They recognised that there would be cases where it might not be suitable for bikes to follow the busses, so the provision was made for motorcyclists to be advised by signage.

If the wording of a bylaw was itself sufficient then how are out of town riders supposed to know which bus lanes are covered and which ones aren't?

(I might add we still do have one friend in Parliament. Our local MP has been seen on the back of her husbands HD from time to time.)

[Ixion]

Are you suggesting that bikers are socially responsible Ixion?

We are talking about specifically about the north shore busway here (as that is the only busway project Clive is involved in to my knowledge.

In this particular case I would argue that it is a better use of taxpayer dollars to build a busway than a regular traffic lane. My reason is because of the existing southbound bottleneck at the harbour bridge. There would be no point in the buslane being open to all traffic because they would all have to merge into the regular traffic lanes around Onewa Road, which is already a dogs breakfast. On the other hand though, buses using the dedicated bus lane would have a good run all the way from Sunset Rd (or so) past the stationary cagers. Surely some of them would wisen up and take the bus. Just look how full the new park 'n' ride car parks are.

In general though, I dont believe bus lanes are a particularly efficient use of pavement. A regular traffic lane has a capacity of approx 2100 vehicles per hour (ignoring merge and weave). If I remember correctly the NS bus lane is intended to carry up to 100 buses an hour southbound in the AM peak.

One of the main reasons that bus lanes are being built is because Transit made a commitment in the regional land transport strategy to provide better public transport facilities. And why did they make this committment? No, its not because they like travelling on buses, its because the public transport lobby (including The Greens) pushed hard for the inclusion of these policies.

The whole strategy went out for public consultation before decisions were made - theres not much point in whinging about it now.

You asked not whether Busways were a good idea or not, but for reasons why, assuming them to exist, motorcycles should have a better case for access than other modes of transport (ie cars) .I make no judgement about the merit or otherwise of them. But, once they are, we should be allowed to use them, because we are even more a socially efficient mode of transport (yes, indeed we are) than buses and much more so than cars.

[Drum]

Good stuff Ixion.

It appears we are all right, or wrong. Im not sure which now.

Either way, a good debate.

[Drum]

.............because we are even more a socially efficient mode of transport (yes, indeed we are) than buses and much more so than cars.

Interested in your reasoning. Not the car part - I get that.

Emissions?
Fuel consumption?
Higher contributions to the consolidated fund?

[Ixion]

Only (as far as this debate goes) in terms of roading. "Bang for the roading buck".

The purpose of spending taxpayer money on transport (of any sort - roads, bus subsidies, bridges etc) is to move people and goods to where they need to go or want to go.

The more people that can be moved per million dollars, the more efficent the spending .

Unless you are a terminal control freak there is nothing about buses, trains that makes them inherently "good" and private cars "bad"

But,runs the argument, if you spend X million dollars on providing roads for general traffic (ie, in effect, cars), you don't get much return , measured by extra people moved .Spend the same X million dollars on facilitating public transport and you move more people. Put 100 people in buses, takes less space than 100 people in cars .So a kilometre of busway moves more people than a kilometre of general motorway. Note that I'm not saying this is true. I have my doubts m'self. But it is certainly the only basis upon which spending public money on busways can be justified. Unless you take the Green approach and say that "cars are evil, full stop, and should be banned and if we can't ban them we should make the lives of people who drive them hell, and make them insanely jealous and and and " .

But, if 100 people in buses take less space than 100 people in cars, 100 people on bikes take less still (especially if we include pillions). Hence, buses more efficient than cars, but bikes more efficient than buses.

Freight is a different matter, but no-one is suggesting moving goods by either busway or bike. Though, allowing the busways to be used by heavy trucks would in fact be very sensible.

Think of it this way. Assemble 100000 people, all of whom have to get to their various destinations. Load them into cars , with the usual one person per car. Send them off down a length of road, and count how many people go past a point in an hour.

Now do the same thing but send them off in buses with "normal" peak hour loadings. Count again.

Now send them off on motorcycles some sigle some pillioning. Count again.

The most efficient transport medium is the one which gets the most people counted in the hour. I'm betting it would be bikes. Then buses. Cars last, obviously.

Of course not everyone would ride . Just as not everyone will or would take a bus. But that does not detract from the efficiency of the two wheeler.

[Drum]

..........But, if 100 people in buses take less space than 100 people in cars, 100 people on bikes take less still (especially if we include pillions). Hence, buses more efficient than cars, but bikes more efficient than buses...............

But you can get 60 odd people on a bus, and I would wager that 60 bikes take up more space than 1 bus (not too many pillion riders during the peak hours).

I dont disagree with your hypothesis, but it ignores many of the normal road factors that affect traffic flow.

So the question now is: "are motorcycles more socially responsible than buses?"

[Ixion]

I don't think they would. Bear in mind, you can get several bikes across the width. And the test was people moved. Bikes, because of their manoeverability , will more efficiently use the road space.

And you can't compare full loads on the bus (a) because they won't always be full and (b) even if the bus is full going one way it has to come back again and is unlikely to be as full on the return. You have to use an "average" load, though I'll grant you "average for peak hour" (there is no question at all that a bike is more efficient than a bus at 10pm at night, with one passenger aboard).

..So the question now is: "are motorcycles more socially responsible than buses?"..

No no. efficient. Socially efficient

I ride a two stroke. There is NO way to persuade anyone that Petal is in any way socially responsible