Reading yet another stupid article in the NZ Herald today about people getting fined for driving over Grafton Bridge during the 7am-7pm Monday to Friday period when it’s bus only really makes me wonder whether there’s a plague of blind drivers in this part of Auckland. It seems that somehow a couple of councillors think Auckland Transport is at fault for policing the bus lane along here:
Auckland Transport has been accused of “money-hungry militancy” over the increasing number of motorists being issued $150 bus lane fines on Grafton Bridge.
Auckland councillors Cameron Brewer and Calum Penrose said yesterday that the transport agency’s figures for the year ending May showed 14,253 bus lane infringement notices were issued on Grafton Bridge.
The bridge is closed to cars from 7am to 7pm on weekdays.
They reckoned that at “$150 a pop” the potential revenue from bridge tickets over 12 months was $2.1 million.
Since June last year, the monthly average had risen from 1000 tickets to nearly 1300.
I’m not quite sure how simply enforcing a bus lane can classify as “money hungry militancy”. I remember many years ago that people got grumpy with the police for enforcing speed limits, or enforcing that people wear their safety belts. It seems to me that people just have a habit of getting grumpy when they’re caught doing something they know they shouldn’t.
So why are so many people continuing to cross Grafton Bridge when they shouldn’t?
Mr Penrose, who represents Manurewa-Papakura, said he was getting a lot of complaints from people snapped by the bridge’s bus lane enforcement officers’ cameras.
“They simply don’t realise the bridge is closed to cars during the day.
“Some don’t even know they’ve done anything wrong until the ticket turns up. They can’t remember seeing any signs or any advertising.”
Now when the bridge initially went bus only I wholeheartedly agreed with those who said the signage was inadequate. The transport department at Auckland City Council – who were in charge of this issue at the time – made some stupid excuses about being consistent with national signage standards, before finally common sense prevailed and we saw a massive plethora of signage.
From memory, there are advanced warning signage on all approaches to the bridge, there are no turning signs (with the explanation that this applies only some of the time given secondary prominence). And there’s also a big overhead signs with red crosses over the top of the lane during the day to indicate that you can’t travel in that lane at the hours of the day when the bus lane applies. To ignore all these signs is similar to driving the wrong way down a motorway onramp and then the wrong way over the harbour bridge ignoring all the red crosses in the lane above you.
So, I can come to the conclusion that there are only two possible explanations for such a large number of people continuing to ignore the huge number of signs and effectively make decisions similar to driving the wrong way down a motorway onramp and then the wrong way over the harbour bridge. The first possible explanation is a plague of temporary blindness that occurs in Grafton, meaning that drivers simply don’t see the mass of signage. This seems like a fairly unlikely possibility, although I have managed to catch a cold over the past few days of being at the hospital after being completely cold-free for the whole of this year up till now.
The second explanation, which seems a bit more likely, is that people take a gamble that there won’t be anyone enforcing the bus lane at that particular time. With lots of political pressure seemingly being put on Auckland Transport to reduce the number of people they catch driving in the bus lane, perhaps people think the odds are pretty good that they won’t be caught.
Ironically, I probably think that the way to solve this issue is by Auckland Transport policing the bridge a heck of a lot more, rather than any less. If they policed it all the time and advertised that fact widely, then people wouldn’t take the gamble because they would know that they’ll get pinged. As an example, compliance levels for Onewa Road’s T3 lane are pretty damn high because they have at least one team of people policing the lane each and every day. People generally don’t take the gamble of driving down the Onewa Road T3 lane because they know they’ll get caught.
I don’t know whether it’s possible to automate the process of enforcing the Grafton Bridge bus lane. Perhaps each bus (and emergency vehicle) could be fitted with a transponder which talked to a camera, basically saying “it’s OK, I’m a bus”. Everyone else would get pinged automatically – perhaps with a two-week warning period where people got sent a letter explaining the situation but not being fined, with the fines being implemented after that. I reckon if Auckland Transport adopted this approach we would have next to no people crossing the bridge in cars within a few weeks.
Update:
This is a good photo showing the signage. You really would have to be blind to miss it:
Bus lane sign. Two no entry signs. Bus lane writing on the road surface AND a big overhead sign with red crosses. Crikey if you can’t see all that then I reckon you don’t deserve to be able to drive.
Processing...
I like how Brewer and Penrose whinged, but had no proposed solution to the problem themselves. Which leads me to believe they have none.
On the topic of consistent automated enforcement, it wouldn’t be too hard.
Put up licence plate cameras, like on the Northern Gateway toll road (we have the technology already).
Have the bus companies supply AT with registration plate lists of their fleets, compiling a list of authorized vehicles.
Then the logic is simple. For every plate scanned, the system can check if it’s on the list. If not, check if it’s a registered emergency vehicle. If not, send a fine.
Once such a system is in place, it can be extended quite easily to other locations such as other busways / bus lanes.
2 weeks ago I nearly got caught out there.
One lane is very clearly marked that it goes straight ahead.
It is not until the queue of cars moves forward that you see the signs.
Perhaps if the straight ahead lane was painted green for buses only?
Hm, maybe Geaeme has a point. The straight ahead arrows are there from the bus lane enforcement not being 24/7 though. IMHO it should be 24/7, and direction arrows and B-lights instead of the general round green light for entering the bridge.
On that topic, I think there should be a B-light phase for Symonds St uphill buses, enabling them to go straight ahead from the bus lane – they currently can’t, as that crosses traffic heading for the onramp.
Which approach? The approach from Grafton has a bus lane that terminates just before the intersection (allowing drivers to turn left). I think the signs are clearly viable from where the bus lane ends. From K-Road there is a giant green overhead gantry sign with the bus lane on it well back from the intersection (+ standard signage). Both the lanes can’t be painted as they are also used by turning car traffic.
BTW admin, when i lived in Grafton those overhead signs with x’s on them were lit with x’s 24/7, even when it was legal for car’s to use the lanes.
Automatic enforcement should be a given. The cost of current enforcement must be really high, and coverage is very low. There are a number of commercial products available for bus lane enforcement that produce evidence that will hold up in court. I also support physical lane separation (flexible barriers) at the end of bus lanes, giving car drivers a clear indication of where to “merge” in.
Of course if the “revenue gathering” yells become too loud automated bollards could be installed (with enough room for bikes to fit between). The inevitable few wrecked cars from people tailgating buses through might generate some bad press though. Demerit points could be lobbied for (legislation is current being changes to allow demerits from speed camera tickets i think).
Would be interesting to know the recovery rate of those fines.
This makes me angry as a cyclist (people consistently breaking the rules). Bad enough having to inhale the bus fumes, let alone the cars as well.
I think automated retractable bollards are what are needed like are in some places overseas, as a bus approaches they lower and as soon as the bus has passed they raise again preventing entry to cars but still allowing cyclists through. Will try to find a video of them in action when I get home tonight.
You mean like this? Complete with what happens if you ‘miss’ the signs.
Thats them
Problem is you cant read any signs when you are following a bus – let alone parked up behind one at the lights!
Cameron Brewer has no ideas of how to be in the media except via coming up with anti-bus lane campaigns. The signage is so clear, the council also sent out thousands if not tens of thousands of warning letters for people driving over the bridge when it first went bus only, there’s no excuse really, and having members of the council continuing to make out there is an excuse for doing it is simply an indication of how hopeless they are as a councillor.
Andrew is right so easy to have a video camera picking up all the plates. Auto policing shold cut down on infringements.
What is needed is a less bewildering, less conflicting array of lights and signs that can be read from all approaches in text sizes appropriate to the speed and distance of traffic on approach. Simple.
shows how pathetic the Herald is.
Maybe the drivers are all anti-privatisation protesters? The bridge was built and paid for by the general public. The general public were able to drive over the bridge for many years. The Council have now stopped the general public from driving over the bridge and reserved it for giant corporations like Infratil.
Imagine the outcry if Steven Joyce reserved the Northern Motorway for trucks, and fined other motorists trying to drive in to town? There would be similar civil disobedience going on.
This comment is blatant trolling and adds nothing to the discussion. You can’t really believe that bus lanes = “privatization”.
Of course it is trolling. But then so is “a plague of temporary blindness that occurs in Grafton”.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to troll one’s own blog 😉
There are plenty of vaguely-satirical blogs that are designed to work readers and commenters up in to a frenzy of indignation. I saw an Aussie one recently that was obvious satire but was quoted as if it were real on the ABC. Is that trolling? I’d say “yes”.
I thought the “plague of temporary blindness” explanation was good humour. Like “Colossus of Roads”, it prompts comments in a way a serious sensible discussion of issues doesn’t.
I was trying to comprehend what Cr Penrose had said about people not being able to see the signage. See the update to the post above – you would seriously have to be blind to not see all that.
The council is not stopping anyone from using it. They are just restricting the type of activity that it can be used for. This is like stopping dogs from using beaches in the summer or not allowing golf in public parks. The general public can still use it by walking, cycling or taking a bus over it.
Obi, bus passengers, cyclists, pedestrians etc are the same general public that paid for the bridge. Since when did one need to be seated behind the wheel to be a citizen? In fact not a single one of the citizens who actually funded the bridge a century ago ever drove a car over it.
Are we to assume that anyone not riding a horsecart or walking is an illegitamate bridge user?
Let’s not forget that our poor beleaguered motorists have recently been handed a brand new four lane bridge across the gully, courtesy of the tax paying public. That bridge is one where it is illegal to even walk across at any time of day, perhaps that puts the 7am to 7pm ban into a little context.
People KNOW the rules, they see the signs and then make an exception for themselves and drive over it. “That doesn’t apply to me because I know what I want- fast congestion free trip!”.
People drive into the Brisbane Busways all the time, try and get over the Eleanor Schonell Bridge and claim ignorance- they know exactly what they are doing. It’s a dangerous thing to do to not follow the rules.
I think the key is to change the green light into a ‘B’ light during bus lane operations and leave the red light on, that would be a sign difficult to ignore. The overhead gantries are far too high for anyone to see and the side signs have that’s difficult to read when moving at 50km/h. Also the signs assume that you can actually read English which might not be the case for tourists.
There are pictorials for no left/right term and no entry (horizontal white bar in a red circle) so even those who do not understand English should be able to get the message.
I think the “B” lights are a good idea (will have to wait for the legislation mentioned above to be passed). Also I think some green treatment on the beginning few meters of the bridge would be a good idea.
“No Entry” signs should never be used in conjuction with an illuminated Green light on a traffic light system. Its a contradiction in terms.
Legislation to use a “B” lamp? – oh brother!
““No Entry” signs should never be used in conjuction with an illuminated Green light on a traffic light system”
Not sure where you got this from? I believe its use is quite common.
For example When leaving Parkfield terrace you face a full round green signal, with a No entry sign restricting your access onto Boston road, hence you must either turn left or right onto Khyber pass. (I used to live on park-field Terrace).
http://g.co/maps/262s8
It would be nice if the government could pass the legislation quickly, but that never seems to happen.
Pave the whole bridge surface in green. There is no way anyone could miss that.
The main problem is the fact the local residents moaned about the original 24/7 plan. If it was buses only all the time there would be no need for lights and arrows that could be misinterpreted.
“There is no way anyone could miss that” lol, bet people will still drive across it, and say they had no idea.
I think the “green” is quite expensive to apply.
Agree. I can see how someone can miss – all the signs together are bunched that they all get ignored. The lanes need to be painted and the thing made 24/7.
I haven’t been there, but what signs are there on Symonds St BEFORE you get to Grafton Bridge.
The photo shows signs that appear to be a 90 degrees to the bridge so you wouldn’t necessarily see them until you were making the turn or on the bridge.
There are advance warning signs about 50-100m west of the bridge entrance on K’Road. Will have to check if there’s anything on Symonds Street, but I suggest there may well be similar signage.
Despite the cost, I suggest that greening the whole approach on either side would be “worth it”. No, some people won’t shut up, but then, the more ridiculous their arguments become as to why they didn’t see it, the more fun it is to call them out for their blindness.
@Obi. but you could argue that the public actually has EVEN BETTER access now because more people are able to move freely across the bridge in buses/on foot/by bike than could do in cars.
Are people on horses allowed across the bridge? Nick raises a good point that horses and carts were the original bridge users and it is a long diversion for a tired horse if they are not.
Maybe this is an animal welfare issue?
@ Chris R. They’re pretty obvious… Cycling past I have actually seen drivers make a conscious decision to do this – they know about the bus lane but they decide to give it a go as they might get away without a ticket. You can see their faces change – just as you can see somebody’s face change when they suddenly realize you are cycling up behind them and they’re about to hit you 🙂
@Nick R
Both my great grandfather and grandfather who lived in Mountain Road drove cars (or, in the case of my great grandfather, was driven in) across Grafton Bridge from the start; I believe my grandfather obtained a license to drive a car in 1908 (he was also pretty much the worst driver ever), Both were ratepayers so contributed via rates to the construction of the bridge. But that’s immaterial really: the bridge has now been designated as a bus lane during certain hours and private motorists should face up to the fact that, after a long hiatus, not everything covered in tarmac is reserved solely for them.
That would be them, that would stop people
I think that this is symptomatic of a wider issue in New Zealand. That is – driving is seen as an everyday personal activity that everyone has a right to partake in. Driving is in fact a complex and dangerous task that requires skill and ones full attention.
If someone operating heavy machinery at work didn’t see something they should have and ended up doing something wrong it would be considered serious whether or not anything adverse actually happened. Bus lane infringement should be considered proof that careless driving has occured and people should be prosecuted (perhaps with a warning at first). We are far too lenient on car drivers
Sigh. What’s the news in this??
It’s called a voluntary tax. I’ve no problem if people want to pay it – no skin off my nose.
I have actually riden across on my bike a quite a number of times, and have observed what is happening.
a) people from ‘outside’ the city i.e. mostly brown folk from south are driving across. I don’t think they can read – and I don’t blame them – the literacy levels down south are very poor. Often it is families going to the hospital.
b) I’ve spoken to two tourists, telling them it was illegal. They were surprised so I pointed out the signs to them – they admitted they didn’t read them. I gave them both a bollocking.
In regards to A – I suggest AkTransport hold community meetings down south to a) explain and b) teach signage. As for tourists – well I’ve no problem ticketing them. Word will soon get around.
Remember – it’s a voluntary tax, not a fine.
While literacy is certainly an issue in the South, surely they must know what a big red “No Entry” sign means, because surely they’ve had to sit a license test.
I did wonder that – but discounted it as a) it costs money to sit a test b) there is SFA of easy cheap public transport down south c) forcing the working class to drive everywhere so the likelihood of there being a licensed driver is low. If you are the working poor, you don’t pay to sit the license test. You just drive and pray that you won’t be stopped.
With all the money the council have collected, I’d like to see B lights installed at both ends of the bridge with red lights on for general traffic during hours of operation. All the other signage & overhead lights are inconsistant with the rest of the city, I can understand some drivers not seeing them. It would only be supplimentry to normal red traffic lights.
If there is still a compliance issue after this, people are obviously running red lights so they’ll deserve the demerit points & hefty fine.
If automated cameras are cheaper to own & operate than mobile then they should be used. Something like the moveable red light or speed cameras would be good. There are plenty of bus lanes and no parking during rush hour areas that could do with cameras.
i live in the grafton side and a couple of times when i was late around 7am i drove on the bridge, it was a risk worth taking.
If the cameras were automated 24h, well, i wouldn’t take the risk.
Count how much signage there is to take in when driving if you do not know the area. Looks a cluttered intersection. Are you allowed to use Grafton Bridge in weekend?
Apparently there is a legal issue with using B lights regarding the fact that motorbikes, cyclists and emergency service vehicles are entitled to use the bridge, I.e it is currently illegal for a cyclist to proceed on a green B. Someone on AKT said they were currently working on changing this to make it legal, so hopefully soon we will only see B lights during the day and regular lights after hours.
They should cease having green traffic lights giving entry to the bridge. There may be red arrows above, but the standard green traffic lights are more obvious. The lights should be at red all day, with a “B” light giving buses authority to proceed.
The lanes shouldn’t be painted green, because cars are allowed on the bridge most of the time.
Wouldn’t that be simpler? 7am to 7pm lights are red, change to amber with indicators alongside to go for Bus and Cycles, then back to red. Only red (amber) light runners would offend. Buses and cyclists would need to know only to go with amber and their (green) Bus/Cycle indicator
Then 7pm to 7am and at weekends lights change red to green for all modes to go.
But council might miss out on some revenue….
The downside is having buses and cyclists going through amber lights and whether cross traffic might interpret amber as having consequences for their routes.
In Italy (maybe in all Europe too) we’ve got this solution, since 1993. All the lights are white, you can have a red light on the side that public transport vehicles (trams, buses and sometimes taxis) ignore. Really, traffic is not only an Auckland issue.
In Italy (maybe in all Europe too) we’ve got this solution, since 1993. All the lights are white, you can have a red light on the side that public transport vehicles (trams, buses and sometimes taxis) ignore. Really, traffic is not only an Auckland issue. pic here:
http://www.tramditorino.it/semaforo_tranviario.htm
@ Chris. Woah! So many offensive things in that post I can’t comment on them all in less than 10 minutes. So I won’t….but perhaps you could just reflect quietly on everything that was wrong with your post for a few minutes.
It think the solution is:
1) No regular green lights between 7am and 7pm, but just a B light.
2) A sign that says “cyclists, motorcyclists and emergency services vehicles may proceed on B signal”
and 3) a legislative change to make it legal to do so.
Apparently they are working on 3 right now.
Read how London deals with drivers who use bus lanes – Hope the $2m fines collected are used to build more bus lanes throughout Auckland – a lot cheaper than rail http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/963.aspx
Or, judging by the Councillor’s who comment on the issue, the problem is with above average income urban 4×4 drivers with a heightened sense of entitlement.
Hehe. Owned.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5190415/Bus-lane-driving-lawyers-case-thrown-out
Blind????
The signs are in small print – you have to read from across the intersection… and thats only if you are at the head of the queue… otherwise you are stuck further back and behind all manner of vehicles including vans and utes making forward visibility impossible until you are on the intersection…
Over riding all of this are TWO green traffic lights – in anyones language that means GO AHEAD.
“No Entry” signs should NEVER be used alongside GREEN traffic lights indicating GO AHEAD…
Simple solution is to have the GREEN light illuminated with a “B” or the shape of a bus during the hours of operation – simple common sense ued by many cities wolwide – then again, judging by this abortion of intersection signage… ask yourself why so many are going through??? Its because its too late to see the small print and figure out that GREEN does not mean GO
“Simple solution is to have the GREEN light illuminated with a “B””
The issue is that current legislation does not allow this. (I think its something to do with it making it illegal for cyclists to proceed and cross the bridge) I believe the legislation is in the queue to be updated.
In the mean time we will have to make do with the large number of signs. (there really are a lot. There are additional signs back on each approach road indicating the restriction. In addition the highest volume approach road (k-road) has the bus lane marked on the large overhead gantry with an intersection diagram. I think the signage is plentiful.
There was a study done a couple of years ago on Symonds street where additional large temporary signs were put up. The study found that they did not improve compliance, and also that most motorists driving in bus-lanes were aware of the presence of the bus lane. Compliance only increased dramatically with the presence of an enforcement officer.
What is needed is a less bewildering, less conflicting array of lights and signs that can be read from all approaches in text sizes appropriate to the speed and distance of traffic on approach. Its a very big and busy intersection – an arterial – not a back street in Amsterdam.
In regards to your point on the “B” light – legislation??? Really? Cyclists and motorbikes can cross the intersection with other traffic (which would be on a green light at the same time the “B” light would be illuminated green) – they know they can use bus lanes elsewhere in the city even though these arn’t posted with No Entry signs, small print and what have you.
I would say the vast majority caught out by this are not deliberate rule dodgers. It is making a mockery and laughing stock of the city really.
The issue is not that cyclists do not know that they can use the bridge, but rather that it would be illegal for them to proceed on a “B” signal. This is what the proposed legislation change is about, to allow motorbikes and push bikes to proceed a certain kind of signal (I’m not sure if it is the “b” one). (unless you propose just tacking a green “B” on underneath, say the round green from K-rd)
I agree that there is a lot of signage clutter (The council kept adding more when complacence was unexpectedly low – you now have to pass at least 3 signs discouraging bridge access before getting onto the bridge). The issue is keeping it legal for bikes, while not for cars. I don’t really like the signage clutter.
I don’t usually go anywhere near this anyway but even I know you can’t drive over there at times. The thing is though that I don’t know the times.
I agree, from looking at the photo above, that the signage is a bit confusing and that is while looking at it from the luxury of my PC and not in a car with traffic around me. Maybe it could have a motorway LCD type sign with “buses only” or something like that during times of PT operations?
To get to the point the photo was taken (along K-rd) a driver would have already passed two bus lane signs. One diagrammatically on a giant overhead gantry, and one on the left (just behind the camera).