Drilling down into a proposal by continually asking “why?” is a smart way of crystallising what a proposal is really about.
This column is about three Why questions currently in play in the roading and driving streetscape.
Firstly, state highway roadside signage.
We have a small avocado orchard and, with houses all around us, we don’t spray or export. Our crop will be picked for the local market in the next month or so.
Meantime, as we live next to a state highway, we have a small roadside stall with a small 800mm x 600mm sign: “Spray Free Avos For Sale”.
It intrudes 600mm into the road reserve, is put out and taken in daily, and has been going for five years or so.
Last week the sign was called illegal.
“Why?” was the response.
Because it’s against “The Third Party Signs on State Highways Rule”, came the reply.
Now, I get the notion of intrusiveness into sightlines and potentially causing a distraction issue, but, really, a 1.4 sq m sign at ground level intruding 600mm into the road reserve? And what about all the other signs along the road?
Anyway, the upshot was the sign is now on our property, on top of a block wall, almost 2m above the ground, more visible than before, but legal.
The reason why also arose in the last week with the announcement of the reversal of previously installed speed limit reductions.
This comes across as little more than political sabre-rattling, which could be justified as “reversing the politics of slow”.
The announced changes for locations in Northland are pretty inconsequential but they do fly in the face of years of public consultation and agreed outcomes about the safe and appropriate speed limits for these roads.
The thing is, that the road itself and its surrounding environment should communicate to drivers about a safe speed to drive it and the changes announced will make little difference either way to the respective safety of these roads.
The “Why” in these cases is more about what we campaigned on rather than a considered approach to road safety.
The final curiosity with the why question is the current disruption to traffic along Bank St and Kamo Rd.
The context of this is as a trial to improve the congestion along this corridor between 7am and 9am on weekdays.
This involves creating an extra priority lane for buses, motorcycles, and vehicles with two or more passengers.
Questions arise about parking, pedestrian crossings, road markings and policing the users of the priority lane, and there are multiple others.
The rationale is that this is a trial, which is fully funded by the taxpayer. If it works, more corridors could be transformed.
The expected outcome is better traffic flow at this peak time, higher use of shared vehicles and public transport, resulting in less parking pressure in the CBD – well!
Priority lanes have been around for a while in larger metropolitans but it is difficult to find an objective analysis of their relative success. We do know that policing bus lanes with cameras has become a nice little earner for Auckland Transport.
Let’s hope that we have some objective analysis to assess the outcome of these changes, to justify their “why” to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
