Reply from Auckland Transport

Patronising? Or Caring?

Update to blog, Drop Kerbs

A few weeks ago, in my blog Drop Kerbs, I explained a parking issue around a popular beach and harbour walkway near Auckland CBD (Tamaki Drive and Mission Bay). In short, there is

“6.5 km of road between Ports of Auckland, and Mission Bay offers over 95% roadside parking, much of which is empty. However, none of this is marked as mobility parking (making parking a gamble when your car has a rear ramp, because you know many other road users don’t notice, or take notice of, polite ‘Please leave me room’ stickers). Additionally, if you take a calculated risk, and someone else is driving so they can move the car if necessary, the only drop kerbs in this whole stretch of road are by junctions or pedestrian crossings”

As mentioned in that blog, I had fired off an email to Auckland Transport (AT), and it to Auckland Council too.

Reply

I received the reply a few days ago:

“Tamaki Drive is classified as an arterial road and it carries approximately 11157 vehicles per day. The location of mobility parking spaces need to be carefully considered to ensure safety of its vulnerable users. Please also note that mobility parking is operated on a first come first served basis.

Installation of mobility parking on arterial roads is not recommended due to volume of traffic. In addition, the clearance between the driver side and the live lanes is very limited. Therefore, anywhere on Tamaki Drive would not be a suitable location for a mobility car park.

In the meantime, please continue to use the existing mobility parking on off street parking spaces along the side streets of Tamaki Drive. Please also note that mobility card holders are also entitled to park for double the time permitted (for restrictions up to P120) in restricted parking areas. However, in a parking space with a parking restriction below P20 or above P120, these exemptions do not apply. You can also consider the use of general on-street parking on the side streets of Tamaki Drive. Site observations suggest, although parking is well utilised on Tamaki Drive, there are spaces available throughout the day.

Thank you for your patience while we investigated the matter.”

My thoughts

There are a few ways to interpret this reply, and maybe other people will have different actions also.

Does AT come across as caring? (“carefully considered to ensure safety of its vulnerable users”)
Does AT come across as uncaring? (“the clearance between the driver side and the live lanes is very limited” - do not all drivers need to be carefully considered to ensure their safety?)
Did AT actually read my email thoroughly? (“the clearance between the driver side and the live lanes is very limited” - I had clearly mentioned my rear ramp access in my email to them)
Does AT not believe that disabled people (and their cares) are capable of assessing the situation themselves and making an informed decision as to whether using a mobility park will be too dangerous? (By not providing some mobility parks, they are effectively taking that decision away from us.)

My response?

Hmmm, still thinking on that. Despite AT considering the matter closed (“Thank you for your patience while we investigated the matter.”), I think I will respond, but I’m going to take my time and hopefully will be able to frame my thoughts more coherently.