BUS LANE BULLETIN
READING HACKNEY CARRIAGE DRIVERS BID FOR BUS LANE ACCESS ON A33 REJECTED
A proposal to allow taxi drivers to use bus lanes along a key route in Reading has been turned down by the local council. The A33 bus lanes, which run between Rose Kiln Lane and the M4 Junction 11, are designed to speed up public transport and potentially accom- modate future tram services. A petition signed by 231 people was submitted to the council’s traffic management sub-com- mittee by the Reading Taxi Association (RTA). It argued that taxis should be included as a form of public transport and granted access to the bus lanes. RTA chairman, Asif Rashid, high- lighted the importance of taxis for
those unable to use other modes of transport and the potential for more efficient journeys on the A33. While Labour councillors sym- pathised with the petition, there was concern allowing taxis to use bus lanes would jeopardise the prospect of trams being introduced. The request was opposed by the council’s highways team, which raised concerns that taxi drivers would swerve into regular traffic lanes to avoid buses stopping to pick up and drop off customers. Mr Rashid contended: “We have shown through our continued use of other bus lanes that this is not the case. “Hackney carriages, by law, is a
form of public transport. The
problem is that not everybody can use alternative modes of transport. We want to work safely along the A33 corridor. “We’ve been trying to get this for years and every time we’ve been knocked back. “By excluding hackney carriages, the council is inadvertently undermining the very objective it aims to
achieve by
congestion, promoting sustainable transport and ensuring equitable access to mobility.” Ultimately, councillors rejected granting taxis access to the A33 bus lanes by a majority vote at the meeting on November 27.
BATTLE FOR PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE ACCESS TO PORTSMOUTH BUS LANES CONTINUES
Following the decision by Ports- mouth City Council to deny private hire drivers further bus lane access, the Cabinet Member for Transport, Cllr Candlish (LibDem), had his decision “called-in” for review by the Scrutiny Management Panel (SMP) on 11 November. At the meeting in October - attended by over 100 PHV drivers - Cllr Candlish was cautioned by numerous councillors that there was a lack of data and financial reports to justify any decision, and that to proceed would inevitably result in any decision being “called-in” (a process that requires a SMP to question the decision in detail, and for the Cabinet Member to justify his decion). A “call-in” requires the signatures
26
of five councillors, and a detailed report laying out the reasons. The move (only the third time in ten years) was led by Cllr. George Madgwick [Ind Leader), supported by four other councillors and a highly detailed five page report, highlighting the numerous errors made by Cllr Candlish, and the multiple contradictions in the officers’ own reports, and clear lack of supporting evidence. Having heard from all parties, and after much rigourous questioning, the SMP voted by a majority to “refer back” the decision to the decision maker for reconsider- ation. The SMP set out in writing the nature of its concerns that are to be addressed. Peter Sutherland [Uber Drivers’
Trade Rep] declared the decision by the SMP to be a pleasing partial victory, stating: “It’s a significant victory for common sense. “At the original meeting, Cllr Candlish was cautioned numerous times by councillors that there was no evidence to support such a decision, and that to proceed risked a call-in. We’d heard, days before the meeting, that Cllr Candlish had already taken his decision, and that was obvious during the Transport meeting. Absolutely no heed was taken of anything said by other councillors or in depositions, which shows a disregard for the democratic process. “I live in hope that a compromise can be reached. If not, then the fight will go on.”
JANUARY 2025 PHTM
reducing
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
