STEPS IN THE ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT FAILURE
Similar to our analysis of market failure in relation to public transport buses, Michael Mintrom provides another useful analytical framework for assessing government failure[13], which may be more appropriate for the issues contained in this report. Government failure describes the way in which “gvernment actions, while at first seeming desirable, can produce results that are not better and potentially worse, than the results produced by apparently failing markets.”[14] There are nine steps to analysing government failure:
The following points numbered 1-9 correspond to the guidelines proposed by Michael Mintrom in his forthcoming book Contemporary Policy Analysis. They can be viewed here.
1. This is a study concerning fairer bus lane regulations in Auckland, which was prompted by frustrations held by motorist in dealing with ambiguous bus lane procedures implemented by the Auckland City Council.
2. Bus lanes were introuduced to make buses more efficient in peak hour traffic. By making buses more efficient the plan was to attract more users of public transport and thus ease traffic congestion. The reduction of unnecessary traffic congestion has many advantages, ranging from environmental protection and increased productivity for businesses to simply more convinience for motorists and other road users.
3. Public transport is not usually the first or most desired travel option for people. Nevertheless, public transport is important and it should be promoted and encouraged. The Auckland City Council has made some effort in doing so. It is important to acknowledge the fact that centralised decision making in the area of public transport is probably the best and most effective way of dealing with the issue. Left to their own, citizens and independent organizations would most likely complicate the issue through forms of unfair competition. Furthermore, information about public transport is probably best disseminated by a central authority like the Council who has the resources to do so.
4. Bus priority measures[15] are in fact supported by most people and they are effective in making buses more efficient. Issues that have caused upset are more to do with enforcement measures – the 50 metre rule in particular. Indeed, some believe that the 50 metre rule is sufficient and acceptable but in response to the uprising about the difficulties of judging 50 metres without assistance, a possible augmentation may be to add permanent markers or signs that clearly singal motorists exactly when they are allowed to enter a bus lane. Futher, another possible (but less likely) alternative to this rule may be to ban cars from using bus lanes altogether where possible. Then, at least, confusion for motorists is minimised because the issue becomes more black and white.
5. One of the main allegations against bus lane regulations has been that current enforcement measures have been directy related to motivations of revenue raising by the Concil. This topic has received widespread media coverage. Most coverage details details rapid increases in revenue through the issuing of fines and infringements notices, particularly parking and bus lanes tickets. It was revealed that in 2009, then Mayor John banks had planned to use infringment revenues to offset proposed rates.
6. There are six[16] bus operators that service Auckland City, however, there is one main player in particular that has an almost monopolistic presence in the market. Transportation Auckland Cooperation Limited stands to benefit most from any bus priority measures implemented by the Council. Transport Auckland Cooperation Limited, which operates as Metrolink, Link, Go West, North Star and Waka Pacific, is likely to support government interventions in pubilc transport because it makes them more efficient and hence increases their patronage and revenues. This may be seen as an unfair advantage to certaine parties as a result of the Council’s policy.
7. Road safety issues have been identified in relation to bus lane regulation. It has been highlighted that confusion over the 50 metre rule may promt dangerous or irresponsible driving in busy traffic. For example, when a bus lane is filled with buses beyond the 50 metre mark (approx. 3 buses) at an intersection, a number of motorists wising to turn left are faced with one of two option: the first is to incoveniently miss or forfeit the turn; and the second is to make an attempt at cutting into the left lane (within the 50 metre limit) often at the last minute. This poses a dangerous situation for buses, their passengers, by-standing cars and the drivers willing to take such a risk. Additionally, in such cases there is also a risk to pedestrians. Often, vehicles turning left are not able to do so until pedestrians have crossed first, even when the ‘red arrow’ traffic light is no longer on. In such instances drivers turning left are expected to exercise their own caution in the absence of proper left side traffic signals. When bus lanes are thrown into the works, drivers turning left often have to rush to make their turn within the 50 metre distance yet this presents potential risks to pedestrians, since rush and panic are one of the leading causes of road accidents.
8. Government failure in the context of bus lane regulations suggests several insights for future rule makers. Firstly, in the endeavour to make buses and public transport more successful, bus priority measures like bus lanes should be formulated with both buses and motorists in mind. Current complications seem to stem from the fact that bus priority measures are approached from a one sided perspective, which narrowly focuses on making buses more efficient by whatever means possible, without considering the role that motorists themselves have to play in easing traffic congestion. Secondly, more attention should be given to educating and informing motorists about bus lane regulations. This step is often skipped over in the rush towards enforcement measures. Further, on the topic of enforcement, policy design should be continually measured against aims to be more trasparent, so that the enforcement authority’s credibility is not tarnished or resentment created.
9. In terms of bus lane regulations, reliance on government action is probably the best option for society, by virtue of the ‘public good’ nature of roads and public transport. It may be difficult (although not impossible) for private authorities to regulate and enforce bus lane reguations. What needs to happen then, is for the Auckland City Council to simply revisit and improve current practice on bus lane regulations.