Transport Minister Michael Wood announcing the Reshaping Streets proposals. Photo / Mark Mitchell
OPINION:
Is it malicious or is it just ignorant? Transport Minister Michael Wood has announced plans to improve the consultation process for changes to the way we use our streets, but the response has been a chorus of complaints.
Why? Better consultation about transport plans is the one thing people of every political persuasion have been crying out for. Mayoral candidate Viv Beck has been among the most vocal, but even she's complaining.
Here's what happens now. When Auckland Transport or some other arm of council wants to make a change to street use – temporary or permanent – they put the plan up for "consultation". You can respond on a website, or perhaps attend a meeting or go to an information stall at the location.
Public feedback is then evaluated and informs the next stage. If there are changes to the plan, they go back for another round of consultation. It's a statutory process and it can go on for a long time, endlessly consulting and changing and consulting again, especially if council is trying to meet at least some proportion of its stated goals and make most people happy as well.
In the end, there are always some people convinced they've been ignored, while the final solutions may be such poor compromises they don't please anyone anyway.
The exemplar of this awfulness is the cycleway in the West Lynn shops, produced after a process that alienated the community on all sides, with a result that doesn't work and which no one likes.
It's way beyond dispute that the consultation process is broken and needs to be fixed.
And if you want to initiate something yourself – even a one-off street party, say – well good luck with that. There's a mountain of paperwork including a "traffic safety management plan", all of which will chew up your time and cost you a ridiculous amount of money.
The need to fix this is also beyond dispute.
What if you just take the initiative without getting approval? The council will be obliged to stop you, even if the officers might think what you're doing is fine.
The Government's new proposals are called Reshaping Streets. They comprise a set of rules and guidelines that set out ways in which street use can be modified and streamline the consulting process, making it less frustrating for everyone.
Just as importantly, they will provide an efficient pathway for local communities to initiate their own plans for street use. Ground-up progress, rather than top-down planning, just as it should be.
Want to close your block for a Sunday barbecue? Does your local school want a better plan for managing pickups and drop-offs? Think your street should have a lower speed limit? Keen to discourage rat-running commuter traffic, so it's safer for kids to walk to school?
Whether it's one-off events, trials or permanent changes, the new rules should make these things much easier. And when they happen, residents get cleaner air, the streets become safer for everyone including kids, cyclists and people on mobility scooters, and there are more chances for neighbourhood events that bring people together.
Alas, some have scaremongered with the suggestion parents won't be able to drop their kids at school. Newsflash: schools themselves are desperate for better rules to govern pick-ups and drop-offs.
National's transport spokesperson Simeon Brown even declared "Labour is coming after your car and your street". He suggested people may not be able to drive to their own homes and the elderly and infirm who depend on cars may be stranded.
None of these things are proposed or will happen.
This is an important initiative focused on road safety, carbon emissions, empowering local communities and improving democratic processes. So, back to my first question: is it ignorant or is it malicious to frame the proposals entirely as if drivers might be losing some kind of sacred right? Perhaps it's malicious to be so ignorant.
Viv Beck said, "Pedestrian malls, school streets, and restricting vehicle access for community events are all things that can add life and energy to our city, so long as they're approached sensibly and practically."
Does that mean she gets it? Sadly, no. Faced with proposals that actually are sensible and practical, she's against them. This is Beck's usual approach to transport plans: She says she likes the idea, but now is not the time, or this is not the way, or there's some other concocted reason why it's all wrong.
Beck has been endorsed by C&R, the National Party's front organisation for council politics in Auckland. Is she really going to let urban troglodytes like Simeon Brown dictate her policies?
Streets are public spaces and their use has always evolved over time. Three pieces of data highlight why the changes now proposed are so important.
The first is that according to the transport agency Waka Kotahi, a third of all trips by car are less than two kilometres long. A third! We've got into the habit of using the car for every little journey. We will never reduce emissions or have safer streets if we don't reverse this.
The second piece of data relates to GPS. Google Maps now sends enormous numbers of drivers on "short cuts" through suburban back streets, instead of keeping them on the main roads. Local data doesn't seem to be available, but the GPS influence has been widely studied overseas. In London between 2009 and 2019, for example, trips on minor roads increased by 63 per cent.
The third piece of data is a direct result of the first two: in Auckland, over half of all deaths and serious injuries on the roads are now to people not in a car. That's cars hitting people.
On the right, they like to say motorways and four-lane highways are safer, so we need more of them. But what we urgently need is to restore the relative safety of ordinary streets. And, yes, get serious about reducing emissions.
Reshaping Streets is Waka Kotahi doing the job it's supposed to do. And in not unrelated news, the agency is also about to revisit a decision it was not supposed to make.
In February, it announced there would be no trial of a cycleway on the harbour bridge, even though transport minister Michael Wood had asked for one and assured the public it would happen.
Instead, Waka Kotahi proposed to spend $700,000 on a one-off "celebratory" bike ride in November. Let's be clear: that event, like the $700 million cycling bridge previously proposed, has not been asked for by any cycling groups.
Get Across, a coalition of transport groups, announced that unless the agency reconsiders its position, it would seek a judicial review. Waka Kotahi's reasons for opposing a trial have never been strong and, besides, isn't the agency supposed to take instruction from the minister?
The Auckland Ratepayers Alliance is campaigning against the trial. But not because it will waste money. Cycling, after all, is the cheapest transport to provide infrastructure for, and a well-organised trial is a great way to assess the need for something without spending much money at all.
But such thinking has never troubled the brains behind the ARA. They're not about keeping rates low, they're just about stopping spending on things they don't like, without having the honesty to admit it.
Will good sense prevail at Waka Kotahi? The board meets on Thursday. It's not just a cycling trial at issue now: this has become a test of ministerial authority.
Waka Kotahi is holding public workshops on Reshaping Streets and public submissions can be made until September 19. Details here.
Minister Andrew Bayly sat down with Tom Raynel to discuss his 2024, and what comes next.