Transport Minister Simeon Brown has released a radically different policy statement for land transport. But will it deliver on its promises? Photo / Mark Mitchell
Transport Minister Simeon Brown has released a radically different policy statement for land transport. But will it deliver on its promises? Photo / Mark Mitchell
Opinion by Simon Wilson
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues. He joined the Herald in 2018.
These are reasonable priorities. But does the GPS deliver on them? I have some questions.
1. What happened to the $500million pothole fund?
In July last year, Transport Minister Simeon Brown promised an annual $500 million pothole fund. The GPS appears to do better: for 2024/25 it assigns $700m to fix state highway potholes and $780m to fix local road potholes.
“Fixing potholes” is another word for road maintenance, so the pothole funds have to be considered in the context of the full maintenance budget.
The GPS eliminates entirely the $2.44 billion allocated by Labour for maintenance in 2024/25. But it does assign another $1.21b for a new category called “operations”.
The net effect is that road maintenance will get an extra $250m in this financial year. It’s good that it’s up, but Brown’s “pothole” fund is really only half the size he promised.
2. Will the police be funded to increase enforcement?
“Police play a significant part in helping to make New Zealand roads safer through rigorous enforcement of the traffic laws,” states the GPS. This is true.
The GPS sets high expectations for police enforcement of the rules, including a target of three million roadside alcohol breath tests a year.
Sounds good, but in fact the three million target is not new. It’s been in place for several years, without ever being met. Last year, the police managed 2.7 million tests; in previous years it was more like 1.5 million.
The main reason the police miss their targets is that they do not have the staff and resources to hit them. The critical decision is about funding: will the Government’s Budget on May 30 fund the police to do the work the GPS expects of them?
3. What does ‘removing speed restrictions where it’s safe to do so’ mean?
The Government believes speed limits have been lowered unnecessarily on some roads, so the GPS states the limits will revert to their previous levels “where it’s safe to do so”.
At first blush, this is an oxymoron. Where limits have been lowered, it was because they were unsafe at the higher levels.
But despite Road to Zero having been official policy for five years, it has been poorly implemented. Speed limits have come down on quite a small proportion of suburban and rural roads identified as dangerous. Police have not enforced the road rules well (see above).
And the rollout of median barriers has been scandalously slow. They are relatively cheap and, where they have been introduced (for example, on the Brynderwyn Hills), they have eliminated fatalities.
But at March last year, NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA) had installed only 96km of its 400km target at the time. We don’t know why.
Flexible median barriers are appearing on New Zealand roads, but far more slowly than promised. Will this stop altogether now? Photo / Duncan Brown
Brown is abandoning Road to Zero. In the GPS, he says: “Following the release of the final [Government Policy Statement] later this year, we will also publish new objectives for road safety which focus on safer roads, safer drivers, and safer vehicles.”
A genuine commitment to “safer roads” would mean the retention and expansion of lower speed limits, traffic calming measures in urban areas and a faster rollout of median barriers.
“Safer drivers” should mean a substantial campaign to persuade people to stop using their phones while driving - and stop moaning that they want to drive faster.
As for “safer vehicles”, the manufacturers have already made them safer for their occupants. But as cars get bigger and heavier, they are becoming more dangerous for everyone else.
The GPS correctly identifies that most fines for driving offences have not been reviewed since 1999. To bring the penalty for not wearing a seatbelt into line with Australia, it says, would mean “nearly tripling the infringement fee”.
While the rest of the GPS contains clear declarations of intent, when it comes to fines it says only that they will be reviewed. Why doesn’t it say they’re going to rise?
5. What do the caveats for the walking and cycling budget mean?
There are strict spending restraints for walking and cycling. Projects must have a “clear benefit for increasing economic growth... Investment in walking and cycling is expected to make a contribution to economic growth and productivity”.
What about public health, community wellbeing, going to the local shops, recreational activities, the benefits to children? None of them gets a mention.
I suppose you could argue that if kids walk or bike to school, their parents could get to work faster and be more productive, but that seems a stretch.
There is allowance for safety, but only if there is “clear benefit for improving safety where demonstrated volumes of pedestrians and cyclists already exist”.
Not building a cycleway for safety unless there are already lots of cyclists risking their lives in busy traffic. That makes no sense at all.
There’s more. “Robust consultation with community members and business owners that could be affected by the investment” is required “prior to any investment decisions being made”.
We already have “robust consultation” for every inch of cycleway ever proposed. But why specifically identify “business owners”, and not, say, local schools?
No surprise, perhaps, that the budget for walking and cycling has been halved, from $1b over three years to $510m.
6. Why is a “multimodal” approach banned?
Currently, planning for roads commonly includes thinking about public transport, cycling and walking as well as vehicles. This is called a “multimodal approach”. Safety issues, climate resilience and other factors are also in play. Where possible, authorities adopt a “dig once” project, with an integrated plan.
The GPS says: “The Government expects that funding [for local roads and for state highways] will not be used to make multimodal improvements, ie cycleways and busways, or fund traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps and in-lane bus stops.”
No more cycleways like the one alongside the Northwestern Motorway?
Build a local road, and come back later to disrupt traffic while you build a bus lane or a cycleway, or put in a raised pedestrian crossing? How does that help productivity? How is it value for money?
Unless, of course, what’s intended is no more bus lanes, cycleways or traffic calming measures at all.
The cycleway alongside the Northwestern Motorway. Projects like this are in doubt under the new GPS on land transport. Photo / Jason Dorday
7. How will they manage congestion?
The top priority is to support economic growth and productivity. That must mean managing congestion. But the document does not explain how the Government thinks this can or should be done.
Funding for new public transport will be cut by a third and much of what remains will be swallowed up by a couple of big projects. This will likely reduce all other services and there’s a suggestion fares should rise. And there will be 15 new Roads of National Significance.
Less public transport and more highways will increase congestion, because it will encourage - force - many more people to drive. This exact scenario plays out every day on Auckland roads.
And not allowing money to be spent on priority busways (see 6 above) on local roads will destroy every city’s ability to manage congestion as its population grows.
The GPS is silent about this.
8. Where’s the value for money?
Despite “value for money” being one of the four listed priorities, the GPS lists some extremely expensive projects with dubious economic value.
Take the East-West Link, a new highway from Penrose to Onehunga. In 2017, when this project went before a board of inquiry, its price tag of close to $2b would have made it, per kilometre, one of the most expensive roading projects in the world. And it had a weak business case.
The GPS does not address this, except to suggest costs could come down a bit through faster planning processes.
9. What about climate change?
The GPS doesn’t mention climate change, except to note that the Government’s key tool to reduce emissions is the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
But for this to be effective in transport, the price of petrol will have to rise sharply. But no government has ever been prepared to let that happen. Will this one?
Transport Minister Simeon Brown. Photo / Alex Cairns
Meanwhile, EVs have become more expensive to buy and will soon be more expensive to run. And the GPS instructs NZTA to “ensure that its focus is on building and maintaining our state highway roading network”.
It appears this will restrict the integrated planning of road and rail, or any other kind of transport. How, for example, should freight be moved to and from ports? It will no longer be the job of NZTA to think about rail when answering that question.
10. And what about local decision-making?
The Government has often said it’s strongly committed to local decision-making, but the GPS doesn’t reflect that.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has a draft Integrated Transport Plan for Auckland. The GPS doesn’t acknowledge its existence, or even suggest the mayor and his colleagues will be allowed into the room.
Simon Wilson is an award-winning senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues, with a focus on Auckland. He joined the Herald in 2018.
