BRONZ Buslane action plan

[Big Dave]

Thanks for asking - I typed a longer reply a few hours ago and it seems to have been swallowed by a server reboot.

How about rewording your first letter so it is on behalf of BRONZ - that would be a great start.

dc

[twinkle]

Maybe BRONZ isn't even on Transits radar? This is a reply to my inquiries at transit regarding who transit consults with.

Transit New Zealand consults with motorcyclists through several means.

Transit is a member of the Accident Compensation Corporation organised motorcycle safety group. This group also include motorcycle driving training providers and other bodies like the NZ Police. The group meets to discuss issues that affect motorcyclists.

As a direct point of contact, each of Transit's seven regional offices has a cycling and motorcycling "champion" who is the first point of contact for regional motorcycle groups, eg the Ulysses Motorcycle Club and local motorcycle retailers.


We also consult through the Automobile Association on issues affecting motorcyclists.

Another forum is the annual consultation process for Transit's 10-year State Highway Forecast. Motorcyclists, as road users, are able to participate in this process.

Also as part of Transit's consultation process, Transit consults with all road users, including motorcyclists.

[Big Dave]

Dear Sir

I find the current set of by-laws governing access to Motorway traffic lanes unreasonable.

I have seen the LTNZ response that use of these lanes in prohibited because of safety concerns.

I stringently disagree and the vast majority of motorcyclists also disagree.

We believe that we (and other road users) would be MUCH safer with access to motorway bus lanes rather than commuting in adherence with the existing Road Code and Bylaws.

In response to specifc issues raised by LTSA:

- The reason given that the road surface is not suitable is not valid. I have inspected the condition of the bus lanes and am confident all motorcyclists encounter far worse road surfaces on a daily basis.

The reason given that (insert reason) is not valid.

Etc etc

I haven't been able to get my mits on the LTNZ 'form' letter response yet - so i can't finish it without knowing what objections I'm trying to overcome IYKWIM. - but add away if you do know or can piuck holes in their arguement

Thats a start - add some points people and we'll edit from there.
Meeting is next week.

[Swoop]

The reason given that

merging back into the traffic stream is dangerous, is not valid.

This is a simple on-ramp merge situation, but at a much slower speed. Bus lanes operate during times of peak traffic buildup because of slow moving traffic flow, so do not present any greater risk to motorcyclists or other road users.

[Bevel]

The Transits reason that merging will be a problem for bikes isn't logical.

1. Surely it is easier to merge a bike than a bus!
2. There's far more random lane changing happening on the motorway, both left and right and therefore more danger.
3. Peak hour speeds are slower and that's the time we intend using the bus lanes so merging is easier than it normally is.
4. Vehicles use the bus lanes till they end so there is a consistent point where motorist are expecting bus lane traffic to merge.

A compromise proposal if needed would be to accept a restricted speed on bus lanes if that meant that we could use them. (If there is not already a restricted speed.)

PS I'm working on that BRONZ letter for you Big Dave.

[Big Dave]

PS I'm working on that BRONZ letter for you Big Dave.

Thanks - I'll get a copy of the correspndence from Transit to BRONZ at the meeting next week (if not before) and we'll be able to see exactly what the reasons we are arguing against are.

[The Stranger:Me]

A single person being transported in a car would have to be one of the least efficient modes of transport there is from a resource point of view. More space, fuel and parking is required than if that same person took, bike, bus, train, walked, in facts damned near anything!

Um no, busses and trains are less efficient.

Basically it comes down to weight per passenger. Cars win over them. And busses cut up the roads way worse than cars also.

[ManDownUnder]

Um no, busses and trains are less efficient.

Basically it comes down to weight per passenger. Cars win over them. And busses cut up the roads way worse than cars also.

I was basing it on fuel per passenger mile, and gut instinct. I know that a 747 (grossly thirsty beast they are... 16 gallons per mile!!!!) works out at less fuel/head than the same 350 passengers driving between destinations. I'd have thought a bus would be more efficient than a car on those grounds.

But even on the weight basis - a full bus (12 tonne/40 people) is only 300kg/person.

[James Deuce]

I need to dig out a recent study on the efficiency of car vs train transport in the UK. The car with single passenger won in two categories - pollution and fuel efficiency.

It should be on the Top Gear site.

[Lou Girardin]

On the subject of BRONZ, we have had articles in the media bagging bikes, and about the 'increase' in fatals to be expected.
Yet to my knowledge there has not been one press release from BRONZ addressing any of these.
This is why BRONZ has no support, they aren't even reactive, let alone proactive.
We need constant reinforcement to the public about the advantages of bikes.

[James Deuce]

12% of fatals are motorcyclists. That means that if we banned all vehicles with more than two wheels, pedestrians, and cyclists, we would reduce the total figure by 88%.

BAN CARS!

[Hellraiser]

I feel a protest ride coming on what better way to get our point accross.

Lets have a motorcycle hikoi (spelt wrong) block one of the motorways up at peak hour. You only have to legally maintain a speed of 40km/hr.

COME ON PEOPLE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THE FOR SHORE DON'T LET THEM TAKE THE BUS LANES

[Fub@r]

"The shoulders on Auckland’s motorways are primarily emergency stopping areas and are not constructed as running lanes. They are at a lower level than the main carriageway and not surfaced with the same material."

Were not really asking to use all the shoulders, only designated bus lanes. Also I'm sure a bus has a more damaging effect on the shoulders than say my 130kg Ginny. Also why speed all these millions on upgrading the shoulders for bus lanes with substandard materials. Surely you would want the same amount of grip[ on the buslane as a normal lane as the bus in an emergency situation would need the grip due to its momentum.

I will look up the Transit requirements for bus lane construction and see if we can counter their argument with regards to construction and surface type required.

As for saying that buses use those lanes under strict rules eg speed limit. Have you seen the speeds some of those guys do, they are not abiding by any rules in their operation.

As to the argument about increasing the number of merging vehicles, has anyone from Transit every watched how the buses merge, they create half the congestion in Auckland whether it be on a suburban road or motorway bus lane. Motorcycles alleviate traffic congestion.

As for dealing with Transit in general they are a mighty burecratic animal. We are currently taking them on over there "Working on Roads" policy for my profession of Land Surveying. Under their rules if I set up a survey instrument on the footpath I have to cone it all off like its an open excavation! Or even more amusing close the footpath and cone a temporary footpath on the road. Which is morew dangerous my set of legs or a car on the road?

[Big Dave]

This is why BRONZ has no support, they aren't even reactive, let alone proactive.
We need constant reinforcement to the public about the advantages of bikes.

So come to the meeting and do something about it.

[Lou Girardin]

So come to the meeting and do something about it.

I think the incumbents will have to show more activity before I waste my evenings. As you know, I did consider attending, but this lack of action has put me off.